Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Deceased Persons (Rights of Next of Kin)

Mr. Harry Greenway: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition from Ernest Alfred Charles Gooch, a retired accountant, male nurse and constituent of mine, of 138 Wadham Gardens, Greenford, Middlesex:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of Ernest Alfred Charles Gooch sheweth.
That the right and duty to choose the means of disposal of the body of a deceased person rests in law with the executor of the will.
That your Petitioner's wishes as next of kin were not followed by the state as executor of his late son's will and that his son's body was cremated rather than interred. Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will pass legislation to grant the next of kin full freedom of choice over the means of disposal of deceased person's body.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
I have received 2,526 signatures in support of Mr. Gooch's petition, which I commend to the House.
Mr. Gooch lost his son last year. He wished to bury him in the grave of his first wife, as she had wished and as he knew his son had wished. He was prevented from doing this by the law as it stands, which provides that the executor of the deceased person's will shall have the right to dispose of the deceased's body as he thinks fit regardless, if necessary, of the wishes of the next of kin.
This seems to me to be a very sad and unsatisfactory state of affairs. It has caused great sadness to my constituent, Mr. Gooch, and I humbly beg the House to do all it can in support of his petition.

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg your guidance about the procedure for applying for second Adjournment debates.
In the past, when I have attempted to apply for second Adjournment debates, it has been indicated to me—whether rightly or wrongly I am not certain—that I must, as it were, get a willing Minister before applying either to you in your office, Mr. Speaker, or to the occupant of the Chair at that time, to be allowed a second Adjournment debate.
Yesterday I tried to get a Minister but it was four and a half hours before the relevant Ministers had decided between themselves which of them was to take the matter. By the time that I had reported to the Chair, I was informed that two other people were in front of me, having found willing Ministers rather more quickly than I had been able to do.
I do not make any allegations on this occasion. All I plead is that, if we are to have a procedure for applying for second Adjournment debates on days when it looks as though the business of the House is likely to collapse, there should be clear rules as to queuing techniques—who is first, second and third in the queue. When wishing to apply for an Adjournment debate, to whom should one apply first—to the occupant of the Chair, or to the relevant Minister?
I am speaking hypothetically, but is there arty protection for Back Benchers against a Government who might be disposed to put one application in the refrigerator for a few hours while they wheel in a few more helpful applications ahead of the queue? If you could tell the House how the procedure, as you see it, Mr. Speaker, should be followed, it would be of great assistance to all hon. Members.
Mr. Foot: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has raised an important point of order in the interests of Back Benchers. I am sure that the House will also agree that he has raised it in a restrained manner. He showed more moderation than Lord Clive showed on a famous occasion.
It appears that Ministers went to extraordinary lengths yesterday to try to ensure that we did not have the debate on


the subject of small businesses that my hon. Friend wished to raise. If that were to become the practice, it would mean that the rights of Back Benchers were being seriously eroded. There used to be a system in the House, Mr. Speaker—as I am sure you will recall—under which it was not necessary to have hooked a Minister before the debate could be arranged. Perhaps we should return to that practice, which would at least safeguard the rights of Back Benchers.
My hon. Friend has suggested that you should give guidance to the House on the matter, Mr. Speaker. May I also suggest that in this instance it would be a good idea if the Leader of the House came to the House on Monday—particularly as next week is invalid direction week—and told us why an invalid or shady direction was given? However, that is not for you, Mr. Speaker. It is for the good sense and good taste of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was the fortunate beneficiary of the second Adjournment debate last night. Whilst clarification of the procedure is important for hon. Members, I should not like the view to be put about that the allocation of my time was in any sense other than through the appropriate procedures. The procedure is to go first to your office, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether a second Adjournment debate is possible, then to contact a Department to see whether a Minister is available, and then to go back to your office, Mr. Speaker, when confirmation is received.
That was done in my case very early on—at 4 o'clock. The procedure was, as I understand, perfectly proper. The matter that I sought to raise was the nearest I shall ever come to making an attack on the Government. It was not in the Government's interest to have a debate on fluoridation last night, so, in essence, it was an attack on the Government and their policies.
Although clarification is necessary, I think that it was proper that I should clarify my position. The innuendo is that the Government were trying to give me an Adjournment debate in preference to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) because it was in their interest

to do so. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to both hon. Members and to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) for their comments. The system that I have followed is that of first come, first served. When an hon. Member gives notice to my office before 8 o'clock in the evening—I do not accept applications after 8 o'clock—I accept the application as long as he has a Minister to reply. My predecessor thought that an Adjournment debate did not make sense if there was no Minister to reply.
The House knows that I have no control over Government Departments—nor do I seek it—but I am jealous of the rights of hon. Members. Government Departments must also be jealous of the rights of hon. Members, because the House is the cornerstone of our democracy. There is not much point in my promising to make a further statement, but I hope that Government Departments will realise that hon. Members have rights in this House, especially with regard to Adjournment debates.

Sir Ronald Bell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will confirm that there is a fallback position in that an hon. Member may rise to speak on the Adjournment even if he has not obtained a Minister to reply. Your predecessors have said that they would frown upon that practice, but it is still open to an hon. Member to speak when it is justified, provided that he is not advocating legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. It is possible for an hon. Member to rise in his place in those circumstances. He is equally correct in saying that my predecessors frowned upon the practice. As a rule, if the Speaker indicates to the House that he feels that a given procedure is wrong. hon. Members have co-operated. Very few have continued in the face of Mr. Speaker saying that he frowned upon the practice. It has done good to have had this matter aired.

Mr. Freud: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has seemed to me, and to many other Members who have raised matters on the Adjournment,


that it is not always helpful to have a ministerial reply.
I wonder whether the House will consider the validity of a Member raising a subject on the Adjournment in front of a duty Minister—there always seem to be plenty around who can make the usual courteous reply—and have the matter answered by mail later. When the debate collapses, it is a great opportunity for hon. Members to raise matters that they have tried with repeated letters on Wednesdays to bring before the House on the Adjournment, for which there is always a fair amount of competition. Will you consider that, Mr. Speaker? I think that it is a good idea.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking—again it is not my business, and I hope that the House will forgive me for commenting on it—the silent brigade to speak. The duty Minister is usually a Whip, and Whips are normally unaccustomed to oratory until they get another job.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you say that Adjournment debates are allocated on a first come, first served basis, may I confirm that you mean first come, first served, with the verbal agreement of the Minister in one's pocket? I am not asking you to rule on the matter on Monday, but the situation is not satisfactory. A first come, first served procedure, with the application registered with you before the Minister has agreed to reply, might be better. Perhaps we should ask the usual channels or the Procedure Committee to consider the matter. It is necessary to have clarity in our procedures. I agree that you have no control over Ministers, Mr. Speaker, but there is no clarity at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: Of course I shall look at the matter again, and will make a brief statement when I have done so.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (FRIDAY SITTINGS)

Mr. Lawrence: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the starting times for sittings on Fridays was changed, with the approval of the House to 9.30 am. I was opposed to that, and mine was a lone voice; I make that concession immediately. But if we cannot have the facilities of the House available in good time in order to prepare ourselves for the 9.30 sitting, the House is not functioning as it should.
We were given an assurance that, notwithstanding the difficulties for the staff of the House in being here one and a half hours earlier on Fridays, all the facilities would be available and the workings of the House would be in no way inhibited. That has not so far happened. This morning, for example, the one cafeteria that was open—and you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that those of us who come a long distance at an early hour, standing like sardines in trains, need a cup of coffee before we start the day's activities—was not serving any drink before 9.20. That is a little close to prayers, and upon inquiring I found that there appeared to be some sort of industrial dispute, as a result of which there is a conflict about who should turn on the heaters.
I merely raise this point for the protection of hon. Members so that every effort should be made—and I hope that those responsible for these matters will ensure that every effort is made—to see that the facilities are available at a reasonable time before the sitting of the House so that hon. Members can get on with their work in an appropriate manner. If what is happening—perhaps this is not the case—is happening because it is difficult for the staff and everyone else to come in at an early hour, we ought to re-think the time of the Friday sitting.

Mr. Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I noticed on the first Friday on which we worked with the new sitting hours that it was almost impossible to get papers for the sitting from the Vote Office before 9 o'clock. I should like to voice my appreciation to the Vote Office, which has now allowed one to go downstairs or to the side entrance in order to get documentation at an early hour.
I have never been in favour of gastronomic lubrication before a debate. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) may find it hard to do without it. I find it easy.
In your wisdom Mr. Speaker, you have selected new clause 4, on the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, which we may well come to after the first business. However, new clause 4 is not printed on today's Amendment Paper. The last version of it, which was printed two weeks' ago, has been confined to the shredder. That makes life very difficult for us because I know that you would want us to discuss it fully, and I think that enough hon. Members have given an intimation of wishing to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Two points of order have been raised. The whole House will agree with the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence): we must have reasonable facilities. I know that those responsible are making the maximum effort, and I will look into what has happened today. Second, with regard to new clause 4, I shall look into the matter, and by the time it is reached, if it is reached today, no doubt copies will be available for hon. Members.

Orders of the Day — CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS (SCOTLAND)

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION

Sir Ronald Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 4, leave out "permanently".
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) informed me yesterday that, unfortunately, owing to an engagement in his constituency, he would not be able to move the amendment standing in his name. I am therefore moving it in his place.
May I ask you at this point, Mr. Speaker, whether we are considering amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 together, or are they being taken separately?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. That was the very matter that I was looking at. The House is asked to discuss with amendment No. 1 the following:

No. 2, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'congenital'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'by' to end of line 8 and insert
'some other mental or physical disability of similar nature and permanence'.

No. 4, in page 2, line 8, at end insert
'and are expected to remain so handicapped over a long period of time'.

Sir R. Bell: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I gathered from the documentation that that was the position, but I am also of the opinion that under the rules of procedure I can move only one amendment and not the four, so that I am in fact moving amendment No. 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to speak to amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but not to move them.

Sir R. Bell: That is what I understood to be the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker.


It will be realised that amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 4 are in practice the same amendment. They go together, and if the House were to accept the first—and I do not know the attitude of anybody to it at the moment, including that of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell)—although the second cannot properly be described as consequential, it would make a mess of the Bill if it were not then accepted.

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We seem to be without a Sergeant at Arms. Are we safe?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member will turn around he will see that the Serjeant at Arms has returned.

Sir R. Bell: After that it is appropriate that I should propose to leave out the word "permanently" and replace it by
a long period of time".
Amendment No. 1 applies to one of the subsections defining the people for whose benefit the Bill is framed. The category is limited to those who are not only substantially but permanently handicapped.
Plainly, the basic intention of the Bill, which is, I suppose, primarily one to assimilate the law of Scotland to the law of England, is to benefit not people who are temporarily ill, but those who have a long-term handicap. One does not in the least quarrel with that. I suppose that I am a little ungracious in having gone so far as I have without saying complimentary words to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, and assure him that he may be perfectly happy about the future of his Bill, though we obviously hope not merely to say good things about it but to improve it a little more than it has already been improved.
It appeared to some of us that a person who was handicapped for a considerable period of time—which might be as much as five or 10 years—should not be excluded from the effects of the Bill. It may be said that if someone is to be handicapped within the terms of the Bill for that length of time, he might be considered permanently handicapped, but that is almost a subjective question. If it is not known at the beginning of the period for how long he will be handicapped, I

suppose that a medical practitioner might be willing to certify that he was permanently handicapped.
However, if it is known with virtual certainty that he will be handicapped for about four years, nobody knowing that could say that that man was permanently handicapped in the way described in the Bill. It therefore seems a pity that this excellent Bill, which we should all applaud, should exclude from its benefits those whose incapacity is long term but not permanent.
Merely omitting the word "permanently" would allow anyone who is substantially handicapped by illness, even if for only a matter of weeks, to come within the ambit of the Bill. That is plainly not the general purpose, nor is it desirable. I do not express any confident opinion about whether people who are merely ill should have concessionary travel, but I can see that there might easily be disadvantages and administrative inconveniences.
Amendment No. 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield proposes to insert at the end of clause 2 (1)(c) the words:
and are expected to remain so handicapped over a long period of time.
That is not an ideal form of words, I suppose. However when one considers what form of words should be used to define what I have been describing—that is, someone who has been substantially incapacitated over a long time but not permanently—it is not that easy to find a better phrase than the one used in amendment No. 4.
During the points of order my mind wandered and I wondered whether I could think of a better phrase. However, I am unable to suggest a better phrase. It would therefore be a question of degree. This matter may be challenged in the courts. There is nothing unusual in the courts' being asked to interpret the words of a statute where there is a dispute, or for the courts to be asked to give a meaning that is one of degree. I have often said, and more often thought, that courts have a bad habit of wiping out discretions by defining them. A discretion is something that is meant to be exercised by the person to whom Parliament has committed it. All too often when the courts get hold of a discretion


they turn it into law by laying down grounds upon which that discretion has to be exercised, failing to realise that once discretion is formulated into a set of rules of guidance it ceases to be a discretion. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that where the alternative is to stipulate a number of years, which would not be suitable. A form of words that rests on a judgment of degree is acceptable and could be suitably administered by the courts.
I do not know the attitude of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland or of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West who has made such excellent use of his good fortune in the ballot by introducing this praiseworthy bill. However, I believe that it is possible that at least the Under-Secretary will say that the purpose of the Bill is to assimilate the law of Scotland in this regard with the law of England because the divergence was, I believe, accidental.
Originally both Scotland and England were covered by section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Inadvertently section 29 was repealed in relation to Scotland. Therefore, I can see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary might say that we should have the same form of words because we are restoring a congruence. However, I do not believe that that would be a valid argument and because of that it may be that my hon. Friend will not advance it.
The reason why I say that is not a valid argument is that section 29 of the 1948 Act has been amended 12 or 13 times. I am not sure whether the number is 12 or 13, because it would require a lot of research to discover that. However, it has been amended many times. That section ends up in a form which is not the same as the law of Scotland will be if the Bill is passed, which I trust it will be.
I draw the attention of the House to an important difference in this same part of the law as dealt with in the Bill. In England at present the position is that the local authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, and to such extent as he may direct:
In relation to persons ordinarily resident in the area of the local authority shall.
So in the English law the matter is partly mandatory, but in the Bill it is not

mandatory. Therefore, there is this significant difference as well as others. I shall not go through the 12 amendments to the Act, but there is already not congruence of language between section 29 of the 1948 Act, as amended, and the terms of the Bill.
Therefore, merely to say—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not do so—that these amendments would lead to a form of words which were not exactly the same as those in section 29 of the 1948 Act is not, in the circumstances, a valid argument, especially when there is an advantage of substance in making the amendment inasmuch as if it is not made undoubtedly there will be people who are disabled in the substantial and significant way that is set out in the Bill who will be denied the possibilty of travel concessions being made for them by the local authority.
There is no reason why that should happen. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West will agree with me in substance, though I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have been briefed with subversive arguments as to the meaning of the word "permanent". I shall await his comments with interest. Meanwhile, I move amendment No. 1 and commend with it amendment No. 4 which, as I say, is part of amendment No. 1 but has to be separate because it comes later in the Bill.
The next amendment to which I wish to speak, though I cannot move it at this stage, is No. 2, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), which seeks to leave out " congenital ". This amendment deals with the same paragraph of clause 2 and defines one of the categories of beneficiaries as those who:
are substantially and"—
as it stands at present—
permanently handicapped by illness, injury, defective hearing, defective sight or congenital deformity or by such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.
I just wonder why the deformity has to be congenital—unless it was because the draftsman felt that the word "illness" in page 2, in line 5 was itself not comprehensive in that a congenital deformity might be excluded from the substantial


and permanent handicap caused by illness, injury and so on, and therefore he put in "congenital", as it were, to stop the gap. I do not know exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes had in mind. Perhaps it was the risk that there could be an incapacitating deformity which was not caused by illness or was not congenital—if, for example, it developed after birth and yet was not due to injury. If it develops after birth, it cannot be congenital.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary looks impressed by that point, and I am very glad that he is. That must be so. The benefit of at least a partly classical education has, I am sure, been shared by him and me, and we know what "congenital" means. In politics we sometimes talk about congenital idiots in a rather loose way, but in the Bill we must give the term a rather stricter meaning than that. "Congenital" means something that happens at birth. If it supervenes after birth, it could very well be left out of the definition.
Again, there is nothing in particular gained by putting it in—at least I hope not. But I shall, obviously, listen very carefully to what my hon. Friend says about that. Of course, it is something that we can consider together with amendment No. 3, which—still on clause 2—says
leave out from 'by' to end of line 8 and insert some other mental or physical disability of similar nature and performance'.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West will see that if amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were both accepted, any gap which might arise through leaving out "congenital" would be covered by the wording of amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 proposes that the words which at present are in paragraph (c)
such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations
should be replaced by the words
some other mental or physical disability of similar nature and permanence.
That is a much better phrase for covering up anything that is omitted and yet is of the requisite degree of seriousness and permanence.
I think that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West will agree that there is always something to be said against leaving things in a

statute to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations. Incidentally, I do not think that it appears in the English statute, so again, we are almost assimilating the two more closely by the amendment. In any case, I do not think that it is a very serious argument that when we are passing a Bill to apply in Scotland only, it should be absolutely word for word on all fours with the English statute, particularly when we know that it will not be that, anyway. Surely, with Scotland having its own system of law, one can just look at the merits of the thing. We know the job that hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West is seeking to do, and which, indeed, he has done very well. We know that the Standing Committee has transformed the Bill absolutely, with the total concurrence of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Without much discussion.

Sir R. Bell: Yes, indeed. So we are here, on consideration on Report, turning our minds to a Bill which is substantially different from that to which the House gave a Second Reading. I am certainly not making any point against the Bill on that matter. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West will detect no note of hostility whatever or of criticism of him in anything that I say, because he has put his opportunity to very good use. I say at once that the radical amendments in Standing Committee undoubtedly improved the Bill. They widened its scope. They were admirable.
However, it seems to me that that was done in rather a last-minute operation. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West had the rather unusual and happy experience of getting his Bill through Standing Committee in one very short sitting. There are those present who would envy him that fortunate experience. He will even get his Bill through consideration on Report in a relatively brief time. Then we shall proceed very happily with him to Third Reading. However, when it is done in that way, even with the advantage which the hon. Member had of Government assistance in the drafting, there is nevertheless the possibility of small gaps being left. It appears to me, and it has appeared to some of my hon. Friends, that there are these small gaps


and they would be filled by accepting the amendments.
There is no amendment on the Amendment Paper on that point, so I cannot make any more than a passing reference to it, but I would have been rather happy if this Scottish Bill approximated more closely to the English legislation and if there had been a small mandatory element in it, because one knows that the implementation of these total discretions can be very patchy and can lead to quite a lot of ill-feeling near the boundaries. I think that we have all had that experience, whether we are in England or Scotland, in relation to the subsidisation of buses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying what he might say on Third Reading, but I do not think that it comes within the terms of this amendment.

Sir R. Bell: I accept your indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall say it on Third Reading. I was merely adding a gloss to what I said earlier on the anticipated criticism of the amendments which might come from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—namely, that they introduce into the Bill some wording that is not to be found in section 29 of the English Act.
Of course, the long title of this Bill does not claim it to be a Bill assimilating the law of Scotland and England, so there is no reason why we should feel constrained to turn aside from the admendments because they introduce changes of wording. However, I plead guilty to embroidering that slightly in saying that in a way I was sorry that there was one assimilation that had not been made. Perhaps if one had given thought to it a little earlier we might have had an amendment down to that effect.
In conclusion, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West on the Bill. Not everyone has the hon. Gentleman's good luck in the ballot, and not everyone having it turns it to such good use and advantage. Nothing that I have said in commending these amendments to the House should in any way detract from our appreciation of what the hon. Gentleman has done. I hope that he, in a similar mood of bonhomie and conciliation, will say that he is

delighted, if not entranced, by the amendments and will be happy to commend them to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I refer to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) about the temporary absence of the Serjeant at Arms? I am sure that the House would like to know that the Serjeant at Arms had come round to speak to Mr. Speaker about the point of order raised about the Refreshment Department. He was not in dereliction of duty. As the point of order will be on the record, I felt that the explanation should also be on the record.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It never entered my mind that there was a dereliction of duty by the Serjeant at Arms, but merely that he was unwell. That was a matter of much greater concern to us than any such thought that was falling below the very high standard of duty that such an Officer shows to the House.

Mr. Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should also like to say that there was never the smallest suggestion of dereliction of duty. I believe that the entire House has the greatest respect not only for the office but for the execution of duty of those elected to perform the office of the Serjeant at Arms.
I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) on his good fortune. It is perhaps ironic that it should be I who does that, because on this day a year ago I, who had been fortunate in winning first place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills, lost it when the Government were defeated on the day prior to Report.
I speak not only as one who is the Liberal spokesman on Fridays, which is unlike other political parties, which nominate their people perhaps for subjects rather than on a calendar basis. I thought that I should make that clear. I should like to join the hon. and learned, and recently ennobled, Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) in saying what a splendid small but important Bill it is. In my opinion, it is better on leaving Committee than it was before, which is


the point of Committee stages, and very much to be welcomed.
It is rare to find that of four hon. Members who have tabled amendments not one has attended the House in order to move them. Perhaps they have good reason for that, and it is not up to us to inquire.
It seems to me that the reason for the first amendment to leave out the word "permanently" is that in the National Assistance Act 1948, which possibly accidentally, possibly not, deleted Scotland from its provisions, the word "permanently" appeared. I have always felt that because something happens in one country it need not necessarily happen in another. I am totally against the principle that if one of the component countries of Great Britain introduces legislation the next country to embrace that concept should not try to make it better.
I believe that we should look at the overall intention of the Bill. There is no validity in confining those who are handicapped, or in stopping those who are either permanently handicapped or congenitally handicapped from doing something that they may not otherwise do.

Mr. Lawrence: Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is even remotely sensible that Scotland, which is part of Great Britain, should have a different law from England? Why on earth should not the administrative laws that we pass—I do not mean those that involve the separate legal system in Scotland—be automatically applied to Scotland?

Mr. Freud: There are difficulties in the separate administration, because the two countries have different legal systems, but that is irrelevant to the amendments that we are discussing. My point is that each time a Bill comes before the House we learn something by hindsight. For that reason, two Fridays ago we welcomed an amendment in another Private Member's Bill in which a six-month period was requested, so that we could consider the effects of the Bill. I believe that any period between the passing of a Bill and its implementation is helpful perhaps in finding a better way to put it into legislative form.
My argument is a simple one. I fail to see why the word "permanently"

was in the National Assistance Act 1948. I therefore fail even more strongly to see why it should now be added to the legislation when it applies to Scotland.
I have no great brief for Scotland. As with many hon. Members, I was an absentee landlord until I came to the House. I found that the remuneration in this House made it difficult for me to keep up my land. My other connection with Scotland was as rector of the University of Dundee, an office that I resigned after six years and in respect of which I have an excellent successor.
Scotland has always led in education and has been to the forefront in the formulation of laws. It should certainly try to do better than the humdrum laws of England, and might well put in the odd word that failed to appear in the English legislation.
If in Scotland concessionary travel for the handicapped is to be a way of life, let the concession be as wide as possible. I do not understand why, if a person is permanently handicaped, he should not have conecssionary travel. I fail to understand why the nature of the illness that is instrumental in getting a person a free place on public transport should be congenital or not congenital in order to qualify. The criterion should be whether a person is handicapped and has the misery and extra expense inherent in the condition suffered. Surely the idea of a compassionate Bill is to be helpful and provide aid for those who need it most.
I therefore very much agree with the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and hope that, without wishing to cause dissent and divide the House, but perhaps having the ear of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Gentleman will consider widening the scope of the Bill. That, in effect, will simply help a slightly larger number of people who could do with and would welcome this enlightened legislation.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield was unhappy about the wording of amendment No. 4, tabled by the absentee hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the words
and are expected to remain so handicapped over a long period of time
were not quite appropriate.

Sir Ronald Bell: I was not uphappy with the wording but merely conscious that those words will be interpreted in the courts. I said that I had tried to think of a more appropriate form of words, but could not do so. To that extent, I am happy with the wording, but it is not ideal.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that explanation. I tried also to think of a better form of wording, but only came up with less appropriate phrasing. If one used the positive sentiment in the amendment and twisted it with a negative approach, it would mean that the facilities would be accorded to people not expected to get better for a long period. I think that the House will agree that that would be more cruel and more heartless. After all, it is the spirit of the words with which we are concerned.
I have no desire to detain the House. I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West. I hope that the legislation will speed its way to the statute book. It will be welcomed by the many organisations in Scotland which feel deprived about provision for the handicapped in Scotland compared with that for the handicapped in England.

Mr. Lawrence: I am sorry to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair this morning. It appears that you are always in the Chair when I am pursuing what is, I am afraid, becoming almost a crusade, namely, an attempt to stop legislation from reaching the statute book when it is not only ill-conceived—that is a matter of personal opinion or party political dispute—but ill prepared or inadequately defined, in accordance with the principles of the Renton committee, which we are trying to apply.
I recall that you were in the Chair last Friday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, no doubt, will be in the Chair for the rest of today. My only consolation is that you were in the Chair one evening this week when I made a speech that lasted for one minute. I hope that that will substantially encourage you, although I do not wish you to think that that was necessarily a precedent for what I hope will be useful contributions to the various legislation before us today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell). I wish him and his Bill well. Any measure of social good sense and progress is to be welcomed, whether it applies to Scotland or anywhere else. In due course I shall be making a point about the disparities of legislation between the two countries within the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell), for being a guide to me in trying to improve legislation. Sometimes lawyers are despised in this House as elsewhere, but, after all, it is the lawyers who have the practice of watching the operation of legislation, and are perhaps better placed than others to judge whether words will be misconstrued, wrongly used, or simply misleading.
Lawyers are better placed to judge whether public money is likely to be wasted on disputes over words in the courts of law. In a sense it is a paradox that the lawyer who is a Member of Parliament is working against himself in trying to reduce the amount of work provided for lawyers who are not Members.
It is unfortunate that the Bill, which is a good Bill, should have had so little time spent on it on earlier occasions. We must spend a little time on it at this stage. I regret that we must do so, because I should like to proceed as quickly as possible to the next item of legislation, with which I am most concerned.
The Second Reading of the Bill was purely a formality, and the Bill was not debated. In Committee, the whole proceedings lasted barely 15 minutes. Some of that time was spent, as is the tradition, in congratulating the Chair on the excellent way in which it had conducted itself. A large part of that 15 minutes was spent by hon. Members associating themselves with the good nature of the Bill. That means that some of the questions now asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, myself and, perhaps, other hon. Members, have to be considered for the first time.
From my knowledge of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, his answers will be reasonable and well considered. If he is unable to give a full answer when he replies, we shall, in due course, receive some elucidation on the points raised.
If we decide to amend the Bill along the lines of the amendments which have been tabled, the legislation will be out of phase with the English Bill, and we shall be doing no very great service to the cause of united legislation. I, for one, shall not vote to do that. It is important to note that we may be detecting inconsistencies, irregularities or problems in the wording which might fall to be considered in the English legislation. There is the question of the meaning of the word "permanent". It must mean, surely, that which is conceived to be permanent at the time that the provision takes effect. It cannot possibly mean that it would not apply to any illness which may be capable of a cure. Medical science is such that, almost weekly, great strides are taken to cure illnesses and afflictions which, at present, are thought to be incurable. New methods of operation are introduced.
One example is hip replacement. There was a time when anybody who suffered from a serious malformation of the hip—either arthritic, developing during the course of one's life, or congentital—looked forward to a lifetime of incapacity and handicap. As a result, that sort of person would be entitled to some sort of concessionary fare if he was unable to work or to receive the other advantages of the able-bodied citizen.
We know now that a handicapped person can go to a number of great hospitals throughout the land and be returned—from a functional point of view, and perhaps from a mental point of view—to a position almost as good as new.
Shall vie say to those people "Yes, you will continue to have the concessionary fare that you enjoyed when you were so unfortunately handicapped"? What provision is there in this legislation—either express or implied—to deal with a situation where somebody who was deemed to have such a permanent illness at the time the concessionary fare was given, no longer has that permanent incapacity? Is the concessionary fare to be withdrawn?

Mr. Matthew Parris: Can my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, tell us what other dangers there may be over the definition of "permanent"? If someone suffers from a seemingly per-

manent condition and it is cured, surely it shows, not only that that condition is not permanent, but that it never was permanent in the first place. Will it then be said that the concessionary fare was wrongfully claimed in the first place?

Mr. Lawrence: Of course my hon. Friend has raised an important aspect of the definition of the word "permanent". I cannot answer that other than by supposing that as a matter of common sense "permanent" can never be considered in legislation which provides a benefit as other than what is conceived to be permanent when the benefit is given. We are not given the powers of foresight. We cannot look into our crystal ball and see these things. There may be a time when a handicapped person afflicted by an illness such as hip malformation will be cured.

Sir Ronald Bell: Will not my hon. Friend agree that when we have these uncertainties it is much better to make the terms explicit in the legislation. Some times the courts reach unexpected decisions—

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is an understatement.

Sir R. Bell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services might feel that the courts sometimes reach unexpected decisions. In this case we would not want to have to introduce a Bill to ratify the actions of local authorities or of the Secretary of State for Scotland because they had authorised the payment of various payments of money to someone whom they believed to be permanently injured, but who was not, and who was liable to repay the money because the district auditor challenged the matter.

Mr. Lawrence: That underlines the importance of giving proper consideration to the meaning of "permanent". I could speak at considerable length on this matter. I will not do so, I simply ask about the meaning of the word in practice, how it will operate and what machinery there is for stopping it from operating when the situation changes. We should throw some light on this murky word in this context.
That brings me to the other definition and limitation of the words "illness", "injury", "defective hearing", "defective sight" and "congenital deformity".


There is absolutely no point in having these words in the Bill if the next few words can be taken by the Secretary of State to cover any eventuality of permanent or substantial handicap. The next words are:
or by such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.
That paragraph gives the Secretary of State complete discretion to prescribe disabilities which are not substantial and which are not permanent illnesses, injuries, or cases of defective hearing or sight or congenital deformity.
My experience of the courts teaches me that the phrase:
or by such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.
does not necessarily limit the courts to restricting the meaning of the Secretary of State's power to that which is covered by the preliminary words in that clause. Some courts may say "Yes, it must be read in the light of that restriction." Others may say "No." There is a conflict in the law on whether this is an all-embracing power, given as a matter of discretion to the Secretary of State."
10.45 am
On the basis of its being an all-embracing power, what is the point of having the provision which limits or defines the handicap? If the handicap is substantial and permanent, the object of the exercise is to ensure that those who suffer from it in a substantial way in our society and who have difficulty in earning a living like other people, should receive some assistance from the Welfare State which does not degrade or humiliate them. This is society's way of saying that no man is an island and that everyone must pull together to improve the lot of handicapped people in order to ensure that they are as welcome users of the facilities of society as anyone who is able-bodied.
If that is the purpose behind the proposed legislation, what is the point of churning out a clause with restrictive words when all we are saying is that the Secretary of State should use his common sense and give that facility to anyone who comes within the category of suffering from a serious handicap. Surely "serious handicap" is enough. We would

get rid of all the doubts about the word "permanent" by removing it from the Bill.
There are some handicaps of a substantial and permanent kind which are also illnesses and are congenital as well, but which would not necessarily mean that the sufferer should have the benefit of the concessionary fare. One such illness is cystic fibrosis, which is a substantial and permanent illness and is also congenital. However, through the miracles of modern science care and treatment are available, particularly if doctors are aware of the illness and the way in which it manifests itself. If new-born babies are not gaining weight and the right attention is given to them—they are given sweat tests—it may be diagnosed that they are suffering from this illness. If they are given regular physiotherapy, dietary supplements and antibiotics, their serious handicap will be kept well under control. These people will grow up to be healthy members of society, well able to get about and they will not need concessionary fares, even though they fall within the categories prescribed in the Bill as qualifying for concessionary fares.
That is an example of where public money should not be spent on those who do not need it and an example of where the discretion of the Secretary of State should not be contained by restrictive words which may force him to allow concessionary fares to those who are, in every other sense, able to earn their living and carry on good and useful lives.
I should like elucidation on the mechanics for deciding where the regulations should apply. Who will decide in a local government area whether a handicap is permanent or substantial or comes within a category of handicap about which the Minister has made regulations?
Will it be a registered medical practitioner? If so, where is that requirement laid down in the legislation? If it is difficult for a handicapped person to get to a doctor in order to obtain a certificate, will a certificate from a midwife, a State registered nurse or another official be sufficient?
Will it be necessary to have the approval of a consultant at a hospital, or will a handicapped person merely have to present himself to an official of the local authority traffic department? There must


be clarification in the Bill, otherwise all sorts of anomalies may arise.
I could speak at length about the principles involved, but I am immediately concerned about the answers to some of those questions. We are trying to make the Bill more sensible and more easily operated so that it comes within the category of useful legislation and out of the category of gobbledegook and rubbish which, with excellent motives, we are so often constrained to pass.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: I beg to move amendment No. 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may speak to the amendment. Only one of the group has been moved.

Mr. Whitney: Before speaking to the amendment. I should like to add my congratulations to those of hon. Members on both sides of the House to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) on the contribution that he is making to the welfare of the people of Scotland.
It is a matter of concern that this lacuna in the adminstrative law of Scotland has occurred.

Sir Ronald Bell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the lacuna is inadvertent? The repeals schedule of the 1968 Act repealed a section in the 1948 Act that applied to the United Kingdom without anyone noticing that it was doing so.

Mr. Whitney: As always, the percipience of my hon. and learned Friend's remarks gives us pause for thought about some of the actions that we perpetuate in the House. As a total beginner in the affairs of Scotland, I wonder how many other areas of law suffer from the handicap that has caused the introduction of this worthwhile Bill.
There is a need for total or relative congruence between the laws governing England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made an important point, but there is a much stronger case for progress and improvement and we must therefore accept that if there are deficiencies in the drafting of the legislation, many times

amended, we should not be content to rest on the mistakes of the past.
I hope that we are a progressive House which seeks to improve the lot of the citizens of this country. We must therefore improve the legislation passed by the House to achieve that objective and that is what we are about today.
We should congratulate ourselves on the fact that, at least on this occasion, in all the plethora of legislation to which we subject ourselves, we have an opportunity to consider, not with a sense of dilatoriness but with a sense of measured calm, the fine tuning of what is already a good Bill.
I hope that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West will agree that we are seeking to ensure that what we put on the statute book for the citzens of Scotland will be an improvement. It may be that the citzens of England and Wales will later be able to benefit from that improvement.

Mr. Parris: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the only possible justification for legislating separately for England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other, since duplication is a time-consuming business?

Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend has raised a question of the widest import. As an English Member I sometimes feel a little disturbed about the amount of time devoted in the House to the 5½ million splendid citizens of the United Kingdom who live north of the border and that devoted to the interests of the 49½ million who live in other parts of the realm.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only reason why we are discussing the Bill is that the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which repealed section 29 of the 1948 Act, did so without any consideration, discussion or examination by the House? Therefore, if consideration is not given at the proper time errors occur and much public time and money are wasted in putting them right.

Mr. Whitney: Again my hon. Friend the Member for Burton makes a valuable contribution. We have to accept the parameters within which the House and the constitution work. We should take advantage of the separate system for Scotland and get our legislation right.

Sir Ronald Bell: I am horrified by the use of the word "parameter". I want to support the Bill, but I have an inflexible rule that I always vote against parameters.

11 am

Mr. Whitney: The classical education of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is greater than mine. The inclusion of the word "congenital" appears to have been the work of an enthusiastic draftsman in 1947. It puts a serious limitation on the Bill's ability to provide for concessionary travel for handicapped persons in Scotland. I am not worried that it might put the legislation out of phase with the law as it applies to England and Wales.
The word "congenital" is both supererogatory and otiose. We must examine the meaning of the word. My hon. and learned Friend referred to that and to the benefits of those with a classical education who can discern the function of the word. I did not have the benefit of such an education. I escaped from Latin at an early age after being given the chance to learn German. My university education involved classical Chinese, which is not particularly helpful when interpreting the English language. To the extent that I understand the English language I believe that "con" means "with" and "genital" refers to the genes. "Congenital" therefore means "with the genes". If a deformity occurs which was not there at birth some individuals could be refused concessionary fares. That is not the Bill's intention.

Mr. Parris: I hesitate to question hon. Members who have a better classical education than I. The word "congenital" certainly means that a condition must exist "with birth". However, that could cover a propensity to a disability. A deformity could manifest itself later in life. Such a deformity might not have been evident at birth but its potential might be in the genes.

Sir Ronald Bell: The Minister must deal with this issue. Surely the point is that Cicero did not know about genes but he did know about the word "congenital". Therefore, "congenital" cannot relate to genes, it must relate to coincidence at birth.

Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friends are taking us from the realms of classicism

through lexicography and medicine and into the law. It cannot claim expertise in any of those realms and, since we are not debating classical Chinese, I must be careful about my comments.
In using the term we must be careful of the lawyers and give them all possible help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton said—and who is better qualified than he to proffer such an opinion?—we have a responsibility to make the lawyer's job as easy as possible even though that might make the job less lucrative. The inclusion of the word "congenital" is totally unnecessary and possibly limiting. Our interest is in people who "are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, defective hearing, defective sight or" deformity. Whether the handicap is congenital, whether it develops because of a weakness in the genes, or whether we take the Ciceronian version does not affect the case one iota. The case for the removal of the now contentious word "congenital" is overwhelming.
The citizens of Scotland will be grateful to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell). I hope that the blessings of the Bill will fall upon them. There will be even greater blessings as a result of improvements, despite the disappointingly perfunctory treatment which these important issues were given earlier in the Bill's passage. I look forward to the citizens of the United Kingdom as a whole benefiting from the deliberations in which we are engaged this morning.

Mr. Ian Campbell: I shall try to answer some of the points raised in the debate. I am honoured that so much attention is being paid to my Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) said that the Bill is now quite different from that which the House approved on Second Reading. It was approved on the nod because it was low on the list of Private Members' Bills. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for suggesting that the scope of the Bill should be widened to include people who
are deaf or dumb; or are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, defective hearing, defective sight or congenital deformity or by such other disabilities as may be


prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations;
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) talked about the enlightenment normally shown by the Scots in these matters. The fact that we are debating the Bill today proves the point. This is one of the few Private Members' Bills that might come to fruition in this Session of Parliament. Progress has been achieved because a second Scottish Standing Committee examines Private Members' Bills pertaining only to Scotland.
The reason that there is a discrepancy between Scotland and England and Wales, is that the Social Work (Scotland) Act preceded similar legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland again leads the field. It has been mentioned that section 29(1) of the National Assistance Act was removed at the time of the Social Work (Scotland) Act. Concessionary travel throughout the country is a comparatively new extension of our caring society. It took some time to recognise that Scotland did not match up to England and Wales.

Sir Ronald Bell: Am I wrong in thinking that for 20 years, from 1948 to 1968, Scotland did match up to England? Surely the repeal of schedule 9 of the 1968 Act was an oversight.

Mr. Campbell: It was an oversight. Concessionary travel is a comparatively new part of the scene. This section of the 1948 Act was used as a vehicle by local authorities to put concessionary travel into practice. It was only after it had been put into practice that differences emerged.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) would mean that Scottish local authorities had to offer concessionary travel to those not necessarily handicapped but likely to be so for more than a short time. The words proposed are not in section 29(1) of the National Assistance Act. In my opinion, they tend to be vague and would perhaps give Scottish local authorities more scope than that accorded to local authorities in England and Wales. It has been suggested that this might not be a bad thing. My intention in introducing this Bill, was to bring Scotland to the same level as England and Wales. To do as the amendments suggest would go beyond the scope

of my intentions. I have received much assistance from the Government on the Bill, which has also received the support of the Shadow Cabinet. It would be wrong perhaps to extend it as the amendments propose.

Sir Ronald Bell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the proposal would not fall outside the scope of the long title of the Bill. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a pure Scot, from the same part of Scotland. Scotland set the example. What is the detriment that he sees in Scotland slightly setting the pace again? If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should turn out to be happy with the amendment, would the hon. Gentleman still be happy?

Mr. Campbell: If that happened, I would certainly accept the advice of the Minister.
The effect of amendment No. 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), would also be to widen the scope of the Bill. The word "congenital" appears in the appropriate section of the National Assistance Act 1948. That may not be a complete answer, but no problems in the operation of concessionary fares in England and Wales for handicapped persons have been reported under existing legislation. If problems were to occur, the Secretary of State has power, prescribed by regulations made under this clause, to cover any group that proves to have been excluded.

Mr. Whitney: It is important for the House to be clear. Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the amendment would widen significantly the terms of the Bill if it were to cover someone substantially handicapped by deformity when he wants to limit the Bill to those substantially handicapped by congenital deformity? There are two different issues at stake. Is he saying that he is anxious to limit the Bill to those substantially handicapped by congenital deformity?

Mr. Campbell: In clause 2(1)(c) "congenital deformity" describes one particular disability. The provision refers to those persons who
are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, defective hearing …
That covers disabilities other than congenital.
11.15 am
Amendment No. 3, in the names of the hon. Members for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), would avoid a situation where the Secretary of State for Scotland is able to prescribe further categories of persons to whom concessionary travel may be offered. The words proposed to be deleted are a direct parallel to those in section 29(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948. In my opinion. it would be better to have the same powers throughout the United Kingdom. The words proposed to be inserted are unacceptably wide and vague. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
I hope that my few remarks and the points that may be made by the Minister will satisfy hon. Members that they should consider withdrawing the amendments.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): We have had an interesting debate. If the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) will allow me, I shall leave my congratulations to him until Third Reading. I have already congratulated him in Committee. I shall content myself at the moment with commenting on the amendments and the speeches made by hon. Members.
I accept the arguments against the amendments put by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West. It would not be my intention to suggest to him that he should accept them. The hon. Gentleman need worry no longer about that. I am, however, in duty bound, as Minister, to comment on some of the points raised by hon. Members. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) mentioned section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Section 29(1) has been amended only twice. It is therefore not too difficult to read. My hon. and learned Friend might find it helpful to use the excellent "Statutes in Force", which presents the text in its revised form.
We have had an interesting discussion on the meaning of the word "congenital," in which many hon. Members competed to decide who had the best classical education. I am willing to put myself at the bottom of that league and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield at the top.
I have to cast my mind back a long way to the last time that I read the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, but my memory is that it gave the meaning of the word as "existing from, or dating from, one's birth". I know that no hon. Member wants to delay our next important business, but we could have a long and interesting academic debate with the medical profession about whether a congenital illness could be one that did not show itself for many years.

Sir Ronald Bell: Surely the point is that we are seeking to amend the wording of the Bill, which refers to, not congenital illness, but congenital deformity. That is the point that the amendment is trying to meet. The deformity would exist at birth. It need not be a defect in the genes: it could be some physical defect which might have dated from birth, which is not genetic but which produces a deformity later. It appeared to us that in that case it could not be said that there was a congenital deformity. My amendment would deal with that by allowing the benefits of the Bill to be available to someone who had a deformity, which perhaps could not be described as due to illness or injury and was not congenital, yet which was substantial and disabling.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I accept those points, to which I shall come in a moment. I would not like you to rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was making the interesting point that someone could, technically, have a congenital illness which did not affect him until he was, for instance, over 21. The reason for retaining the word "congenital" is that without it we should be going against the main purpose of the Bill, which is to rectify an anomaly between Scottish and English law. The word also makes it clear that those who have had neither illness or injury are included.

Mr. Whitney: I now understand that the main purpose of the Bill is to harmonise legislation. I had been under the impression that the intention was to provide legislation under which concessionary travel could be provided for handicapped people in Scotland.

Mr. Fairgrieve: The intention of the Bill, which has the Government's support, is basically to allow those in need in Scotland to have the same facilities as are available in England.
I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who described himself as the Liberal spokesman for Friday—

Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend does that, can he answer my question, which obviously was not asked with sufficient clarity for the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) to have thought it necessary to answer, but which should be answered? I accept what the Minister says about the need for the Bill to harmonise legislation, but why is it necessary in other legislation to have the definition
illness, injury, defective hearing, defective sight or congenital deformity".
if the words
or by such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the, Secretary of State
are included?
In other words, does not the Minister consider that those "wastepaper basket" words, for want of a better phrase—
or by such other disabilities"—
give him such a discretion within the restrictions of the words "permanent and substantial " as to allow for any situation which may reasonably be explained as a substantial and permanent handicap? Why is it necessary to have in English legislation, or in the Scottish legislation, those words whose definition is subject to the problems which my hon. Friend has acknowledged?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I can only thank my hon. Friend for giving me notice of that question. The reason that I have not answered it or even attempted to do so is that I think he spoke after the hon. Member for Isle of Ely and therefore I have not yet come to his speech. Whether I shall be able to give him a satisfactory reply to such an erudite question is a different matter.
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely described himself as the Liberal spokesman for Friday. Members of other parties, unfortunately, have to take on more onerous duties and are not limited to certain days of the week. The hon. Gentleman supported the amendments in the interests of Scotland, saying that it would be far better if Scotland did not have the humdrum laws of England.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that even that description by the

hon. Member was not totally accurate, since Friday is only partly over and he is no longer with us? Perhaps he should more aptly have described himself as the Liberal spokesman for part of Friday. I agree that this reflects the paucity of support that the Liberal Party has in the country.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I could discuss power and responsibility, but I had better not. It is a great advantage of Liberal Members that, unlike those in the Conservative and Labour Parties, they can choose their times of attending the House, whereas we must be present all the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that he was anxious to get on with the next Bill and that he would speak only briefly on this one. He asked, first, for the meaning of the word "permanent". The courts have taken the view that it is a relative term and not synonymous with "everlasting".
My hon. Friend then expressed his concern about the mechanics of deciding where the regulations lie. I will try to answer to the best of my ability, but it is up to each local authority to decide. Local authorities can make any detailed arrangements they think wise. They must decide, for the purposes of existing legislation, who is physically handicapped in a way that affects mobility. They do so by requiring the disabled person to present a medical certificate from his own doctor or to get a special medical examination by a doctor who works for the authority concerned. This works in existing legislation without the need for specific mention, so let us not specify it in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) said that different laws apply to the handicapped in Scotland and in England. He felt that it was our duty to give a fine tuning and honing to this legislation. He took part in the interesting discussion on the word "congenital" and spoke about the need for power to make regulations. The reason for that is that someone might have been omitted in the drafting. In other words, the legislation would still be subject to the scrutiny of the House.
11.30 am
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was worried about the omission and wondered whether it


were carelessness in that the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 repealed section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It might have been a minor oversight that the curtailing of certain discretionary powers for local authorities was not identified, but I must pay tribute to the Social Work (Scotland) Act, which is the basis for the help given to many disadvantaged and needy people in Scotland.
This has been not only an interesting debate but a useful one. I accept on behalf of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and the Government that we dealt with the Bill very quickly in Committee with the earnest intention of giving to disadvantaged and needy people in Scotland the same opportunities and facilities that exist in England. That can be done quickly with the passage of this Bill and in these circumstances I ask my hon. Friends to respond to the request of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. West, which I support, that they either ask leave to withdraw the amendments or do not press them to a vote.

Sir Ronald Bell: I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that we are grateful for the careful consideration that has been given to our amendments. Naturally we regret that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) and the Minister do not, after careful consideration, feel able to accept them, but we think it proper not to press them. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Campbell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Our debate this morning was more interesting than I at first realised, bearing in mind the implications of my Bill and the problems of the Private Members' Bill shortly to be debated. I am grateful to the Government for the help they have given me with the Bill.

11.35 a.m.

Sir Ronald Bell: When earlier I was moving an amendment, I was invited by the occupant of the Chair to make some of the comments I was then making when we reached Third Reading. I respond to that invitation

now with the greatest pleasure because I wish to join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) that have been expressed by the Under-Secretary and that I am sure will be expressed to the hon. Member by everybody present today. I am glad that the number of hon. Members formerly present has increased because it wild have been sad for the hon. Member if all the congratulations came from Conservative Members. I feel that he has not had the support from his colleagues today that he should have had and any help that Conservative Members have been able to give has been given happily to make up for any lack of support from other sources. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has unfortunately had to leave us, but we appreciated what he had to say while he was here.

Mr. Lawrence: It will be interesting to see in due course whether the words that have just fallen from the lips of my hon. and learned Friend occasion any response from the Opposition. I shall be interested to discover the strength of the Opposition support for this very creditable Bill.

Sir R. Bell: It has not been my experience over the years that words that fell from my lips in this House have excited a positive response from Labour Members: but one never knows. This may be the first and exceptional occasion. However, looking across the Chamber now, I do not think that it is likely.
I return to the agreeable theme of my speech of congratulation to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West upon his good fortune in the ballot—a good fortune that has never attended me. I once drew sixteenth place in the ballot and I put on the statute book the Carriage By Air Act 1961. The hon. Member will not need to be told that that was simply a measure that the Government did not have time for. That was the only way of getting a Bill through when one came sixteenth in the ballot.
Not only did the hon. Member have good fortune in the ballot but he put it to good use. Sometimes Fridays are taken up with highly controversial matters which occupy much time in debate without doing much good. However, I must


not run ahead of myself—or run back—because we have experienced much controversy on recent Fridays. The hon. Member sensibly addressed his mind to remedying an obvious though unintentional defect in the law or Scotland. I have, dare I say it, a "congenital" interest, as has the hon. Member, in that law.
I represent an English constituency, but I can say—I do not know whether even the hon. Gentleman can say this—that I have eight great-grandparents, not merely from the Highlands of Scotland but from the county of Argyll. It is therefore a matter of great interest to me that the law of Scotland should be at least as good as the law of England. The hon. Gentleman has made a notable contribution to that end.
Our Friday business has the most salutary and desirable effect of widening one's interests. If this Bill had not come forward on a Friday, I doubt whether I would have ever known as much as I now know about the provisions for transporting handicapped people in Scotland. It may be that some of my hon. Friends have also profited greatly from this opportunity, which we have sought to use to the greatest advantage. I see that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West is preoccupied with a possible error in the transcription of his speech. It would be a great pity if it did not appear accurately in Hansard, since it was a good speech in every way except its conclusions about our amendments. Apart from that, it was a very desirable speech. I gather that the hon. Gentleman can now give me his undivided attention.
I am somewhat surprised at the suggestion that the Social Work (Scotland) Bill 1968 did not cover this ground. I shall not go into specific doubts about it, but there is no doubt the section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 was repealed by the ninth schedule. But the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which we are supposed to be supplementing in this Bill by reference to the 1948 Act—not by reference to English legislation but in positive ways—established various functions in the context of social services for Scottish local authorities.
Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 seems to be in very general terms. Perhaps the Minister, when

he makes his contribution to the debate, will say how the Bill spells out more adequately the powers that it is desirable for Scottish local authorities to have. The section reads:
It shall be the duty of every local authority to promote social welfare by making available advice,
—which, of course, does not apply here—
guidance
—perhaps not—
and assistance on such a scale as may be appropriate for their area, and in that behalf to make arrangements and to provide or secure the provision of such facilities … as they may consider suitable and adequate, and such assistance may be given to, or in respect of, the persons specified
—and so on.
It will probably be said that the term "persons specified" dealt with in the next following subsection does not represent a wide enough category, and that that is what all the trouble has been about.
When one repeals a specific transport section, such as section 29, and then presumably in concept replaces it by general social service provisions such as those in section 12 of the 1968 Act, the moment one begins to specify the recipients of that general dispensation one risks opening up a gap. I suppose that that is the gap that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. West is filling by the Bill. It is very fortunate that he should have done so, for apparently the gap has existed now for more or less 12 years, although I suppose that its existence was not realised for quite a long time; in fact, I think that the hon. Member has said that it was when someone came to one of his surgeries that he discovered its experience.
It looks as though the Scottish local authorities ought to be having an indemnity Bill going through the House during the coming week. The coming week has been described by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) as invalid direction week. We might very well have had a Bill to ratify and condone the actions of the Scottish local authorities, which have unfortunately, with unauthorised generosity, been looking after the travel requirements of the handicapped for some 12 years until the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West addressed his mind to the statutory rectification of this deplorable lacuna.
I am a little sorry that the hon. Member did not go the whole way. This is the bit that your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, invited me to say at this point. I was just a shade surprised that he invited me to do so, because I know that on Third Reading one is not supposed to talk about what is not in the Bill. But, thus encouraged, I may perhaps make a passing reference to it, especially since the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland invited the rejection of the amendments on the grounds that they would lead to a discrepancy between the laws of England and Scotland in this respect. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, in his few eloquent remarks, also regretted his inability to accept our amendments because they would produce a difference in wording between the English and the Scottish statutes.
Against that background, I regret that the mandatory element in the English Act is not reproduced in the hon. Member's Bill. Well, there it is. He has already said his piece on Third Reading. If he had known what I intended to say, he might have said that his faith in Scottish local authorities is so great and so complete, so all-embracing, that he thought it was a matter of supererogation to introduce any mandatory element into the Bill. Speaking with the Scottish background that I have, I dare say that his faith is justified and that he will not see the development of that aspect which has caused the trouble to which I referred about half an hour ago in the administration in England of such things as the subsidisation of bus services and the travel concessions given to old-age pensioners and to handicapped categories in this country. We have undoubtedly found a great sense of grievance among people living on one side of a boundary when the local authority on the other side is more generous in its provision than the local authority in whose area they live.
I am sure that every hon. Member of this House finds it difficult, in answering correspondence, to deal with that grievance. There is not really much that one can say, especially, perhaps, because the grievance is plainly levelled against the local authority in one's own constituency and is making an invidious comparison with the local authority in the neighbouring constituency.
I accept the faith of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and the belief that is embodied in his Bill—and here I am speaking about what is in the Bill and not about what is not in it—that he can leave this matter to the discretion of the local authorities in Scotland, and that it will work without the mandatory backing that is available in England. I do not know whether it is used at all in England but it is there, and I think that the direction can be given. But in Scotland, as I interpret the Bill, it cannot be given.
My hon. Friend the Minister is looking baffled, but, as I understand the position —and I am always willing to be corrected in these matters—there is power in the Bill, in clause 2(1)(c), for the Secretary of State to widen its scope by making regulations. But it remains a discretion in the local authority. There is no power in the Bill for it to be made mandatory. It can be widened, but it remains discretionary. There is a certain element of faith in that.
There is the advantage of not encroaching on the discretionary field of local government. That is an important advantage and not one to be lightly brushed aside. There is the disadvantage of discrepancy in social provision in areas which may be almost unitary in their characteristics. That is less likely, I suppose, in Scotland, where there are fewer people and greater distances, and where people are not packed so closely together, but it may still arise. However, I do not want to appear in the least degree carping or critical of the Bill. If it is not entirely perfect, after the non-acceptance of our amendments, it is not the least a very good Bill.
I am glad that the hon. Member has introduced the Bill. I feel that my hon. Friends will agree with me in saying that the Bill, which we are speeding towards the statute book today—or perhaps I should say speeding towards another place, from where it will slide swiftly on to the statute book, I have no doubt—is one that we are all happy to speed in this way. We have given it the careful consideration that I am sure the hon. Member thinks it deserves. I was happy that he expressed his satisfaction—indeed, almost a sense of being flattered by the attention that it has been given. We are glad that he sees it in that way. I shall have great pleasure in supporting it when


you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put the Question.

Mr. Lawrence: I do not wish to detain the House for long because I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Mr. Carmichael) is in the Chamber. As a Scotsman he is concerned with concessionary fares for the handicapped in Scotland, but I know that he is anxious—and I share his anxiety—to proceed to the debate on his Bill that follows this debate.
In congratulating the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) again—there must be a limit to the number of times that one congratulates him on bringing this measure forward—I suggest that there is a lesson to be learnt. A private Member's measure which is a small but useful reform, and which has the support of Labour and Conservative Members, and is uncontentious, is likely to be passed long before that of the hon. Member for Kelvingrove. Although his Bill is of considerable importance, it is a subject which has moved the emotions of hon. Members to such a considerable depth that he will have to wait for a long period before it reaches the statute book.

Sir Ronald Bell: Why did my hon. Friend jump to the conclusion that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) is here in connection with the next debate and not to speak on the Third Reading of this important Bill, and to wish his hon. Friend good fortune in the outcome?

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising that point. It links with an intervention that I made during the course of his speech. I reached that conclusion because it was not readily apparent when my hon. and learned Friend sat down that the hon. Member for Kelvingrove was quickly on his feet to take advantage of the pearls of advice that had fallen from the lips of my hon. and learned Friend, who suggested that perhaps Labour Members might show their support for the hon. Gentleman's Bill by speaking about it and giving it their support. I was bold enough, and perhaps presumptuous enough, to intervene to say that I doubted whether any Labour Member would wish to give that support. I realised that the hon. Member for Kelvingrove was con-

cerned with the next business, and that is why I presumptuously suggested that he was here in connection with the next Bill. I hope that I was wrong. I have brought the hon. Gentleman to his feet, and I know that he will make a valuable contribution to these deliberations.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that after the experience of the last few weeks the best help that I can give to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) —whose Bill I support, and to whom I extend my congratulations on having introduced it—is moral and then vocal support.

Mr. Lawrence: That was a good answer. In so far as I am a stout party, I collapse, and move on to the relevant matter that I wish to raise.
Four matters give me concern, and it would have been inappropriate for me to have raised them at an earlier stage.
First, why was section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 repealed so inadvertently? How could parliamentary draftsmen have done such a thing without its being noticed? I understand why the House did not notice it. The House did not debate it, doubtless because it gave a formal and quick reading to the measure that repealed section 29 of the 1948 Act. That underlines the importance of the activities in which we are engaged today. We examine the Bills that pass through Parliament to see whether they make sense or whether errors have been committed. If we do not do that, sooner or later—perhaps 12 years later—the time of the House will be taken up and the efforts of hon. Members will be involved in order to remedy a defect that slipped by because no one thought of it at the time.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West in introducing the Bill is tremendous, but there are a number of other more important measures than the mere correction of a legislative anomaly. I cannot speak for the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen in 1948, but I do not think that that sort of thing would happen now. I am a member of the Consolidation Committee. The parliamentary draftsmen on consolidation matters are first rate, and I give them all credit and tribute for their excellent work.
The Social Work (Scotland) Act was introduced in 1968, and the schedule was drawn up—as is often the case, in order to consider what repeals are necessarily involved. Someone in the draftsmen's office must have picked up section 29 of the 1948 Act and read it. He would have seen that the provision stated:
A local authority shall have power to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of persons to whom this section applies, that is to say persons who are blind, deaf or dumb, and other persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity, or such other disabilities that may be prescribed by the Minister.
It seems, on the face of it and without explanation, that a parliamentary draftsman reading that decided to put a line through it by appending to the relevant schedule of the Act the words "Delete section 29".
It is worrying that that sort of thing can happen. Since intelligent and skilful people work in the draftsmen's office, it raises the question whether such an action was done for a purpose. Was it considered by the Government of the day that perhaps section 29 was no longer necessary, because they were about to introduce other legislation, which might reach the Statute book before the repeal became effective? If that is so, I am sure that the House would like to know. If not, it seems to be an action that is so utterly inexplicable as to be almost preposterous. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on that.
Secondly, to date we have received no real explanation of the reason for this Bill, other than that there is an anomaly in the law. Normally, legislation is passed to correct an evil. How many people is this Bill likely to help? If the Bill is so important, and if the anomaly that is being corrected is so substantial, why has it not been noticed before? What tragedies or inconveniences happened in the period of 12 years when there was no section 29? No lawyer in any Scottish local authority had noticed that there was no statutory entitlement to give concessionary fares to the handicapped in these categories. What happened to the handicapped during that period?
All who spoke in Standing Committee thought that there was a need to fill the gap, but what exactly is the gap? That

leads on to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell), who asked: if a local authority has been acting as if the Act were still in force, what is its legal position in respect of any expenditure that has been incurred either by the local authority or the Exchequer? We are entitled to a little more information, other than reasons of a technical nature concerning equalisation of the legislation, about why the Bill is important.
The Bill does not get to the root of the problem. It gives local authorities the power to provide concessionary fares only if they so wish. I hope that it will not be long before concessionary fares are given as of right to people who are so seriously disadvantaged by the vagaries of nature or the acts of the Almighty as to be incapable of living the ordinary, happy and constructive lives of those of us who are blessed with better health. However, that may, of course, be a long time coming.
The point has been made, and I see the strength of it, that it is perhaps unfortunate that sometimes a substantial concession is given to the disadvantaged in one area whereas that given a few miles away is much less generous. That means that the disadvantaged are helped or hindered according to where they live. That is a factor in our consideration of whether the rules should apply generally throughout the land, but I acknowledge that in the end it all comes down to finance. If the nation cannot afford the necessary level of welfare out of its productivity, the good things that we want will not be provided.
What is the Government's thinking on the provision of concessionary fares as of right? How much would it cost to provide concessionary fares for all handicapped people at any acceptable level—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will not persist in his current line of argument. We are debating the Third Reading, not the Second Reading.

Mr. Lawrence: Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was no Second Reading debate. I am sure that I shall be forgiven, therefore, if I have strayed beyond the confines of the Third Reading in order to make


good that which was omitted in respect of the Second Reading. Since I have asked the question I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not stand on his rights and refuse to answer, if not now, at some convenient moment. This is a matter of national concern as to the Government's thinking on the timing and the other aspects of full concessionary fares—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying wildly.

Mr. Lawrence: I will try to cage myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker and restrict my remarks to the matters which I am entitled to discuss.
The third matter of concern is not unrelated to the second. How much will the Bill cost the taxpayer and the ratepayer? Two considerations arise on this. In dealing with this question in little more than a word in Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Minister said
This discretionary concession will not cost a great deal of money"—[Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee, 19 December 1979; c. 7.]
That was the end of the matter. Those of us who consider our function to be as watchers of the public purse consider that it is important that we should ever be asking benign Governments how much their measures will cost the ratepayer and taxpayer are concerned and, I think, justified, even at this late stage in the Bill, in asking why the Minister cannot tell us how much this measure will cost and why he did not know that figure, or, if he did, why he kept it to himself, in Standing Committee.
The second aspect arises under clause 3. Perhaps I do not understand the way in which these issues are handled in Bills of this kind. The clause seems to me a little odd. It reads
There shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.
I understand this to be the clause that deals with the money side of the Bill. The word "Expenses" appears in the margin, but not in the text. It appears to me from that clause that any increased expenditure that is incurred by the Bill will be defrayed by Parliament. That is very interesting if I am right because expenditure on concessionary fares is, by this Bill,

being a matter for the discretion of the local authority—that is why the word "may" is used in the relevant parts—to be met out of the local authority's money, that is, money collected by way of rates or from other sources. One would think that the Bill would seek to allocate the cost of the legislation to the local authorities which have to bear the burden of the concessionary fares schemes generally.
I am ready to be corrected, but it appears that the expenses of the Bill will be paid by Parliament. If they are to be paid by Parliament in the form of a grant for concessionary travel for handicapped persons to be included in some other form of grant which the local authority receives from central Government, is this Bill all that is needed? Does not there have to be an amendment to rate support grant orders, or something similar? I should like elucidation on that point and I am prepared to hear that the issue I am raising has no merit because of some factor unknown to me.
The fourth matter is the whole question raised by the Bill concerning the equalisation of legislation as between Scotland and England. Why is it necessary for us ever to have separate Bills for Scotland and England? I would understand it if there had been devolution. I was an opponent of devolution. I do not want to see the break-up of the United Kingdom. As there has not been devolution I cannot for the life of me see why it is necessary for this Parliament to go on for ever having separate legislation for Scotland except in such areas as the law.
The legal system in Scotland is so different. and it is too late to do anything about our legal system even if we in England wanted it and the people of Scotland wanted it. I contend that except in certain circumstances we should have legislation that applies in all parts of the United Kingdom. If we do not—this point was made admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris)—we shall continue to waste time in this place discussing again Bills the essence of which has been discussed in relation to England. I would like some helpful observation on that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, the Minister, will be as helpful as he can when he replies.
I know that it can be said, and I do not expect it to be challenged, that everything that has taken place in the course of our discussions this morning—and I may not be the only person to speak at this stage of the Bill—has been of importance either for the understanding of the legislation by the people at large in England and Scotland, or for the process of the fine tuning and proper examination of Bills as they come before the House. I hope that I have not raised matters at too great a length so that I have bored the House or caused you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be impatient.

Mr. Whitney: In rising again on Third Reading to congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) on what seems to be an all-conquering passage through the House of his inestimable Bill, I must say that it is a matter of some regret to me that I have to tinge my congratulations with an element of sorrow about some of the matters which have emerged, especially as they emerged on Report both in the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and those of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a relatively new Member. I have had the privilege of being a Member for some 18 months only. I have a great deal to learn from all hon. Members. However, it is my assumption that when we embarked on legislation we wanted to achieve the best legislation possible. I believe that the process in which we were involved this morning was the best example of that. We were given the opportunity, without the heat and battle of party strife—which is clear when one looks at the vacant Opposition Benches—to search honestly for the very best legislation for handicapped people in Scotland.
Without wishing to reopen the discussion on any of the amendments which were not pressed at the conclusion of Report stage, I regret that the proposition seemed to be completely accepted as being beyond challenge both by the proposer of the Bill and by my hon. Friend the Minister. The proposition was not that we should go for the best legislation but that we should go for legislation which

brings the position in Scotland into line with that in England and Wales.
I understand the rationale for that, but it sadly devalues the efforts of the House to promote the best legislation and also brings into question a principle of great importance, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) adverted—that is, what is the requirement of double legislation, if that is the right phrase, as it relates to Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other?
At the risk of seeming parochial, in that I am speaking for English Members, may I say that it seems to many of us that frequently much of the time of the House that could well be spent keeping an eagle eye on the activities of the Government in their efforts on behalf of the nation is devoted to this parallel consideration of Bills as between north or south of the border. If all that we are seeking to do is to have a total congruence, a total parallelism, that clearly is the most monstrous waste of time and effort.
I recognise that there are systems and important aspects of life in Scotland, not least Scots law, which require an important degree of difference, but if we are to proceed implacably down this road of total congruence it may be that important developments and conclusions will flow from that—not least, dare I say it, the honourable and distinguished posts occupied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, other Ministers, my hon. Friends in that Department, and the civil servants devoted to administering the seperate pieces of legislation on Scotland. Many of these activities must surely come into deep and profound question.
This is clearly not the time to pursue the devolution debate. I am not, perhaps, as opposed to devolution as is my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. I think that there may be a lot to be said for it. But I submit to the House and to those hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies that this is a dangerous road. If they are anxious for devolution but at the same time are anxious for a total congruence of the laws as applied to England and Scotland, there is a danger of illogicality.
Worse than that, perhaps what we are being forced to do is to accept second-best law on occasion. That is not our purpose here in Westminister, certainly not this morning when we are indulging in trying to improve what is already an excellent Bill. Therefore, I have more than a tinge of regret that we were unable to persuade the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to accept the embellishments that were offered.
That being so, I conclude by again offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West. I know that many of the citizens of Scotland may not have noticed any difference in the absence of the Bill, but at least those who administer the laws and statutes in Scotland will, as I understand it, continue to administer them in precisely the way they were doing before the passage of the Bill through the House.

Sir Ronald Bell: The difference is that they will be doing it legally in future.

Mr. Whitney: My hon. and learned Friend, as ever, takes the words out of my mouth. Indeed, now they will have the power of doing it legally, and knowing that they do so with the wholehearted backing of my hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Fairgrieve: This becomes a more interesting debate as time moves on. However, I shall be as brief as possible in discharging my duty of answering the various points that have been made on Third Reading.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friends who have stuck with us throughout the proceedings, as I am to such Opposition Members as have done so, particularly the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell). I am sorry that the other hon. Member who has been present during the day—the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)—is not in his place. He called himself the Liberal Member for Friday. He is now definitely known as the Liberal Member for half Friday. I think we have got that point established.
I turn first to some of the concluding remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell). Before I come to the particular, I must make the general remark that the Bill now brings us in line with the posi-

tion south of the border, which is discretionary and not mandatory.
On the question that section 12 of the 1968 Act already provides local authorities with the necessary powers, I agree that the terms of that section might seem so general that it is surprising that this Bill is necessary. That is probably why the anomaly was not noticed for some time. However, there is an element of doubt, and it is most appropriate for the House to seek to make the position quite clear.
The repeal of section 29 was intentional because it was believed at the time that its provisions were covered by other provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act. Unfortunately, the passage of time has shown that there is this small anomaly.

Sir Ronald Bell: That is an agreeable way of putting it. No one doubted that section 29 was put there by a deliberate act, but surely it was inadvertence that the provisions applicable to Scotland in the 1948 Act were repealed when they were not replaced in the body of the 1968 Bill. That surely was an inadvertence. One does not want to be critical of the technicians involved, but it must have been inadvertence, otherwise we should not be here today.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I accept that that is a viewpoint, but I think that some of the other points that I shall be making will contribute to the answer although they may not satisfy my hon. and learned Friend entirely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), again showing our educational skill, kept on saying that he would be making four points. I worked it out as six points. Again, I may not have it quite right, but I hope that I shall cover most of the points that he made. However, the point to which I do not intend to respond is his question as to the Government's thinking on concessionary fares in the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to get into the type of trouble into which I would get if I were to comment now on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security or the Government as a whole on their forward thinking on concessionary fares. That particular answer does not lie within my


prerogative or responsibility so I shall leave it well alone.
My hon. Friend asked whether local authority discretion should continue, because, after all we have a national old-age pension. I believe that here the answer is "Yes", because, unlike the pension, concessions are not cash. They can be used only on public transport. Some areas have less public transport than others, so the elderly in such areas could not make as much use of the concession. and the apparent equity of a national scheme is illusory.
Secondly, different areas have different proportions of elderly people, and other characteristics of an area—average length of journeys, for instance—differ. Thirdly, I think that Scottish local authorities have, without exception, exercised their discretion sensibly.
My hon. Friend quite rightly asked how many people would be affected by the Bill. This depends on the exercise of local authority discretion and how many groups local authorities include. But there are over 8,000 mentally handicapped people in Scotland who are not covered by present legislation.
My hon. Friend raised the question of cost. The powers that we are making available to local authorities are discretionary. Costs, therefore, will depend on the extent to which they decide to use these powers and upon the number of groups of handicapped persons to which they decide to offer concessionary fares.
This comes back to the point that has been made in different ways by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who asked why 12 years had passed before people noticed the anomaly. The answer is that it is because the anomaly arose only in 1974, when the Secretary of State for Social Services empowered English local authorities, using the 1948 Act powers, to give concessions to the groups covered by the Bill.
I come to the question of who bears the cost. Local authorities which choose to exercise their discretion under the Bill will do so, and rate support grant money voted by Parliament is affected, which is why clause 3 is necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton has questioned the reasons for the Bill and how the anomaly was discovered. It is an interesting fact that the father

of a mentally handicapped boy in Strathclyde brought the matter to the attention of the Strathclyde regional council, which approached the Secretary of State. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities also approached the Secretary of State about the matter. There is no evidence, however, that hardship has been caused to a large number of people.

Mr. Lawrence: Not to any people. What is the realistic point of the Bill, as opposed to its technical point, if no one has suffered any hardship as a result of this anomaly?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I said that there was no evidence of large numbers of people suffering hardship. The reason for the Bill, which we have discussed at length today, is to give the people of Scotland the same entitlement, via discretion, which is available now to those south of the Border.
My hon. Friend said that he was tinged with a little regret that we were not introducing the best legislation but merely bringing Scottish legislation into line with what was already happening south of the Border. I take his academic or practical point, but I think that he will appreciate that in this instance for speed and simplicity, in order to get the Bill through the House, it was thought fit by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West—and the Government agree with him—that the simplest way was to allow the people of Scotland, the disabled, whether mentally, physically or in any other way, to have the same privileges as were available to those south of the Border.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to pursue the devolution debate, because not only would that mean that the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill would be delayed but if we started off on that road perhaps many Private Members' Bills would never see the light of day.
I conclude where I started. I congratulate again, and finally, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West on the progress that has been made with his Bill. It is clearly appropriate that Scottish local authorities should have the same discretionary powers to offer concessionary travel to handicapped persons as are already available to local authorities in England and Wales. The Bill simply seeks to rectify a legislative anomaly which recently came to light.
I am glad that, on the initiative of the hon. Gentleman, the scope of the Bill has been widened to include not only mentally handicapped persons, on behalf of whom concern was originally expressed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested parties, but certain other groups of disadvantaged persons such as the deaf, the dumb and those substantially and permanently handicapped by illness and injury. Here again the hon. Gentleman is simply seeking to place Scottish local authorities in a similar position to those south of the border.
This modest but welcome Bill will enable Scottish local authorities to take such steps as they see fit, within available resources, to assist members of the community whose needs are greater than those of others.
It has the support, in principle, of the Government, and I am very glad to recommend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 February]. That the clause (Report on the operation of the Act) proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee),  be read a Second time.

The Minister shall within two years of the coming into operation of this Act and thereafter annually lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Act.".—[Mr. Waller.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am resuming the discussion of this important new clause which we started to debate about two weeks ago.
May I first draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that the Amendment Paper does not indicate that new clause 4 is to be debated. That is unfortunate. I am sure that there are good reasons for that, and that steps have been or will be taken to remedy it. I do not claim necessarily that inconvenience has been caused, although it is possible that hon. Members who wish to speak on the clause, will, believing that it is no longer a live issue, go away to pursue some other im-

portant parliamentary activity, and therefore be misled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It could be misleading. It is unfortunate that new clause 4 was not included. The matter was raised earlier on a point of order. At that stage no copies of new clause 4 were available, but they are now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful for that prompt action, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not aware of that, as I was in the Chamber debating the Concessionary Travel for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Bill. As far as I am concerned, no harm was done. I was here two weeks ago and appreciate that the clause is still live. I was anxiously awaiting my turn when stumps were drawn on that occasion.
I support the new clause, which was extremely well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller). I concede that on other clauses and amendments there is room for argument and dispute, but it is difficult to see why the spirit behind this new clause should not be accepted.
The Bill is claimed by its sponsors to be desperately important. Organisations and individuals throughout the land who are concerned to get the Bill onto the statute book declare that it is urgent. It appears that the matter is so pressing that freedom has to go by the board. It is therefore extraordinary and astonishing that we have so little clear evidence about its operation.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: It is unlike the hon. Gentleman not to have noticed—and I do not know whether he was present at that particular moment—that I said a fortnight ago that I would be only too happy to accept the new clause.

Mr. Lawrence: I recall that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for again pointing it out. It is important, nevertheless, that the subject be debated, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman's comments will shorten our debate.
I am fortunate in having a guest staying with me from Sweden. He asked how our legislation compared with that in Sweden. I do not know how the legislation in Sweden and many other


countries is working. The Bill's sponsors have never relied as justification for the the Bill on the fact that similar measures are working in other countries. The burden is on them to produce such arguments. I believe that they have not done so because to date we do not have sufficient information.
It is therefore doubly important, if the legislation goes through, that there should be a proper monitoring procedure. It is suggested that for the first stage a period of two years should elapse, and thereafter of one year, which is the subject of this clause. That would enable us to see whether the wildest hopes of some of the sponsors are fulfilled. If not, we should remove the Bill from the statute book.
I do not accept it, but the only conceivable argument for taking away people's freedom is that it is necessary for the safety of the State. If close observation of the workings of the Bill reveal that it does not work or that it raises too many anomalies, it is right and proper to restore, as best we can, that measure of freedom which we feel we are in danger of losing.
It has been said that there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in damage and injury on the roads in Australia since the introduction of legislation there. On inquiry, I find that the truth is a little different. The reduction in death and injury since the introduction of their seat belts legislation is coincidental with the reduction of the overall speed limit to 60 miles per hour. It is well known that life is saved and injuries reduced by lowering the overall speed limit.
When we had a compulsory reduction of speed limits in this country in order to save energy—and we still have certain reduced speed limits—there was a reduction in the number of road deaths and injuries and motor accidents generally.
It may be misleading to use the Australian figures as proof of the efficacy of seat belt legislation. We need a body to monitor the operation of the Bill in this country. The absence of information about the workings of such legislation in other countries underlines the need to maintain a close and careful monitoring system to ensure that our freedom is being

diminished for something approaching a remotely good reason.
There are two other examples which underline the need for a proper and thorough investigation. First, we do not know the opinions of our constituents about the Bill, although there has been ample opportunity for constituents to represent their general feelings to their Members of Parliament. We do not know enough about the responses of ordinary people to the legislation. Two Gallup polls were cited, which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a point that is not relevant. Our discussions relate to what might be the position two years after the Bill has been introduced. The present opinions of our constituents are irrelevant. We are discussing the position after the Bill has been introduced and a report has been made.

Mr. Lawrence: I think that you have slightly misunderstood my meaning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I used the fact that there is a paucity of information to underline the thought behind the clause, namely that we should gather more information. I wish to draw attention to the sort of evidence that would be forthcoming after the Bill has reached the statute book.
The general opinion may be that the Bill will not reach the statute book. I hope that it does not do so. Letters are often received after legislation has been passed and people have been alerted to the fact that the law has been changed. Because the Bill has been going backwards and forwards in Parliament for so many years, it may be that people no longer expect it to reach the statute book, and have not written to express their views.
However, a few people have written to me and it is important to note their responses. I received a letter from a retired captain of British Airways. He is not only a responsible person, but some one who has given his life to transport. Incidentally, he had to wear a seat belt in his aeroplane. No doubt he is also a driver. In this letter he said
I consider that I am only alive today because I was not restricted by the wearing of a seat belt when a motorcycle hit us…

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are well outside the


clause that we are discussing. I know that he wishes to probe the matter thoroughly, and he has done so. The new clause has been accepted in principle, yet we have been discussing it for about two and a half hours. All that we are interested in is whether the recommendation that a report be made after two years should be included in the Bill.
The opinion of the airline captain is irrelevant at the present time. His views could be completely different after two years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to whether the new clause should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Lawrence: I am addressing my mind precisely to that point. I am using that individual's response as an example of the sort of response that we shall receive in two years' time. Those responses will be stimulated by the passing of the Bill, and the monitoring body will have to take them into acount.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to continue with a point that I have ruled out of order. The airline captain indicated that his life might have been saved because he was not wearing a seat belt. That matter has been discussed times without number. It is not appropriate to this part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman could go through the whole Bill giving details from letters. It is irrelevant, and I hope that he will confine himself to the new clause.

Mr. Lawrence: Because I respect your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will give me credit for observing, as nearly as I can, any injunction that comes from the Chair. I am attempting to make clear to you why it is relevant that this letter, or any letter, gives circumstances—you are preventing me from putting my finger on a particular circumstance—which a number of people may, if the Bill is properly monitored, draw to the attention of the monitoring authority as a possible situation where an exception should be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. He would be completely in order to say that the monitoring authority should know whether lives have been lost or saved. But he must

not detail every individual way in which lives could be lost or saved. That is outside the scope of our discussion.

Mr. Lawrence: I shall not persist with that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that you are impatient with me because of my attempts to pursue the matter. I have not done justice to myself when trying to explain the point to you.
There are many other points that could be raised in this regard, but I shall not weary you, or the House, by persisting in the matter. However, you invited me to make the point that there are situations which should be brought to the attention of a monitoring authority after one or two years so that it can judge whether an injustice has been caused or whether the Bill is not adequate to cope with a certain situation about which many letters or representations have been received.
Unless that facility is available, and those sorts of letter are welcomed—they can be welcomed only if people realise that there is an opportunity for such letters, having read the report of the debate—the monitoring and the functioning of the Bill may be inadequate.
I turn to an issue to which I do not think you will object, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Another matter to which we have not paid sufficient attention is the position of the police. The enforcement of the legislation is a primary matter for consideration. It is a fundamental issue that the legislation may not be enforceable. If that is the case, the Bill should not reach the statute book. If it reaches the statute book, and it becomes obvious that it cannot be enforced—it would become obvious only if the Bill were properly monitored in accordance with the new clause—changes would have to be made, and perhaps a repeal of the Bill would be necessary.
At one stage in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister said that we should seek the advice and opinions of the police. That appeared to be an extraordinary statement, because the views of the police are fundamental to the purpose of the Bill. Yet at that late stage their views had not been made manifest. Perhaps my hon. Friend thought that it would be wasting valuable police time to ask for their views if the Bill were not to reach the statute book. Of course I praise him for


his very perspicacious view of the future of the Bill. But it underlines the point that if at that stage the police have not yet had their opinions sought on the fundamental issues, certainly the Bill must be properly monitored after it is law. A report will have to be prepared properly and given regularly to the House so that we can be satisfied that the legislation is working, even though it was entered into without the proper evidence and views of the police—the single instrumental body responsible for its enforcement. That sort of situation should not continue if the police are opposed to the Bill, after it becomes law.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: We do not know the views of the police force about whether the enforcing of this legislation, once it is on the statute book, will be feasible. Does my hon. Friend know whether the police would be prepared to monitor the number of prosecutions which will take place as a result of the legislation being enforced?

Mr. Lawrence: I am sure that the police will be prepared to do anything that is helpful and that they will be prepared to make any reasonable contribution to the consideration of the workings of this legislation. I have no doubt that they will carry out any monitoring that is required of them. This only underlines the point that monitoring will be necessary. We are going into this with insufficient knowledge, and therefore it is all the more important that it should be monitored.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Certainly this monitoring must take place and the police must do it. But has my hon. Friend reflected on the possibility that the Parliamentary Secretary has not bothered the police so far with consultation because he knows full well that they are already overstretched in carrying out their duties under the existing law.

Mr. Lawrence: That is a valid and important point, which has been forcefully put by many hon. Members during debates on this Bill. The whole basis of this legislation imposes on the police a function and activity which will be very difficult for them to perform, bearing in mind their other duties. I take my hon.

Friend's point, but I will not continue any further along those lines as we do not want to incur the wrath of the Chair, and that is basically a Second reading matter.
If it were the position that the police were overwhelmingly or completely and utterly in favour of the Bill, there would be less point in requiring close monitoring. However, I understand from a report in the Sunday Telegraph of 10 February that police officers are split in their opinions on this legislation. If I may read from that article—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Gentleman has made the point about the difficulty. We cannot now have an argument about whether the police would do this. If there is provision for monitoring in the Bill, they would be required to do it. If they did not do it, that would be another matter.

Mr. Lawrence: In order to be accepted or rejected my point must be considered in the light of the evidence that I adduce in support of it. I am not so presumptuous as to expect that the House will take at face value every statement that I utter, unless I am able to support it with evidence. That is not only my training as a lawyer coming to the forefront: it is a matter of plain common sense. I wish it were otherwise. I wish that everything I said was accepted without the need for me to give chapter and verse. That is not so, however, and therefore when I make the point that it is important for there to be a proper monitoring process because the police at this stage appear to be divided, I must give some evidence to support that. If, after the Bill has been in operation, the police are seen to remain divided or they come out on one side or the other, that matter should be considered and debated by this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make the point quite clear to the hon. Member. Of course he is entitled to touch on these points, but how relevant are they now to whether the police will make a report at the end of two years, if this Bill goes through? Attitudes can change. It is irrelevant what different police officers might think about the issue at this stage before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Lawrence: That the police will make a report is not in dispute. However, it is important to observe whether they make a report in favour or not. We must consider that matter. If the present position is that the police are divided we shall have to look at whether they are still divided or whether they have come down on one side or the other after this Bill is on the statute book.
I am simply pointing out that, according to the reports in the Sunday Telegraph of 10 February, the police forces in this country are divided. In 21 of the 43 forces there is an obligation on officers to wear seat belts. That is not so in the case of the other 22. That is unsatisfactory and it will have to be closely monitored.
I am putting my finger on something that is most important for us to have in the Bill. Not everyone in the House may agree with me. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) did not agree that we should have new clause 4. This is a matter for consideration. We cannot take it for granted that everyone will support the new clause, however much we may want it. It is a matter for consideration whether in the fundamental question of enforcement, the police will support the working of the Bill after it has gone on the statute book.
Perhaps I could mention the question of the payment of fees for certificates of exemption. I raised this matter in Committee when I read a letter from the RAC saying that it had received a complaint about a fee of £10 demanded by a doctor for a certificate confirming that a driver over 70 was fit to continue driving. This is the sort of situation that is comparable with the issue of a certificate of exemption under the regulations that the Minister will make.
The RAC letter pointed out that the only task for the doctor, since he was fully aware of the medical condition of his patient, was that of signing the certificate. In answer to the patient's protest it was said that the fee imposed was in accordance with the requirement of the British Medical Association. When inquiries were made it was ascertained that the BMA had not fixed or recommended a fee, but that it was thought that £10 was not a large sum to pay—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a passing reference to how this is applicable to what we are discussing.

Mr. Lawrence: I hope that you will trust me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am well aware of your concern that everything I say should be within the rules governing debate on particular clauses or amendments. I am doing my best to honour that, and even though I am not being singularly successful in passing on my thoughts in justification of my argument, I have no intention to do other than he acutely relevant.
The point is that questions as to whether the BMA lays down a rule which is acceptable, whether the rule is practical or fair, whether it causes harm and suffering or pleasure and exultation to the patients who seek these exemption certificates, are precisely the sort of matters that must be monitored.

Mr. Trippier: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is a great imposition on a person to ask him to pay a fee for an exemption certificate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have already discussed that matter in the Bill. It has nothing to do with the new clause. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter, because I am getting tired of continually rising, but it has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Lawrence: I have obviously failed to get across the justification for my raising these examples. They are to do with the Bill.

1 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I correct what I said earlier. I referred to the matter having "nothing to do with the Bill". I should have said that it has nothing to do with the new clause.
Like me, the hon Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is a lawyer and he knows that in court one has to be relevant, and I know that he is trying to be relevant. To refer to matters that should be in the report is one thing, but it is irrelevant to go into details about all the discussions that would revolve around that. Medical certificates and such matters have already been discussed.

Mr. Lawrence: I was giving examples as tersely as I could. I have not read


whole letters or articles, but I have pointed out the sort of matter that needs to be considered if effect is to be given to the new clause There is no point in approving the new clause if we have no reason for requiring a report on the operation of the Act.
I was merely putting my finger on three examples of matters that justify our asking for the new clause to be included in the Bill and I was trying to persuade hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, who oppose the new clause, and to give guidance to the Minister and those who will have to operate the Bill about the matters on which there will need to be close monitoring.
It seems to me reasonable to make that argument and to substantiate it with examples. I do not think that I have gone on at undue length, although I appreciate that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, feared that I might do so. I have not and I will not.

Mr. Trippier: I support the new clause. It is essential that there should be a report on the working of the Act. It has become obvious that many of us are dissatisfied with the proposed legislation and so many exemptions to clause 1 have been discussed on the Floor of the House and in Committee that I believe that it will be impossible for the police to enforce the legislation. That is as good a reason as any for monitoring the situation. I believe that the difficulty in enforcing the legislation is the great weakness of the Bill.

Mr. Parris: My hon. Friend has used the phrase "monitoring the situation"—an expression that is being used with increasing frequency during the debate. I am not sure what it means. Will my hon. Friend give a few examples of the sort of activity that he has in mind when he refers to "monitoring the situation"?

Mr. Trippier: The most effective way in which we could monitor the situation would be for the police to keep records, as they do on other matters concerning traffic offences. I do not pretend that monitoring will be easy, but it will be possible, and local authorities will have a part to play in that monitoring.
It would be unacceptable to allow the Bill to become law without exempting certain persons and categories of vehicles, but we do not know what categories will be exempted.
We also have to consider the extent to which the Bill would become an infringement of personal liberty. That could be easily monitored, because I believe that there will be a groundswell of feeling among the vast majority of people in this country who will object to being told what they have to do.

Sir Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend is on a sound point. In considering how the working of the Act can be monitored, we must recognise that the number of people going to prison on a point of principle will be one method of measuring its effect. I have learnt today that the wretched Mr. Hill is back in prison again because of his conscientious objection to the wearing of a crash helmet. That is the sort of evidence which could go into a report and would be irresistible in its persuasive effect and which we would not have gathered together if we did not have such a report.

Mr. Trippier: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I shall be interested to know how the provision regarding exemption certificates has worked in practice. It is one thing to say that certain people should be granted an exemption certificate for reasons of bad health or because, like myself, they have been involved in an accident that was much more serious because they were wearing a seat belt, but it is another matter to adminster the exemption certificate system. I cannot believe that local authorities will welcome having to deal with the matter. If they do not deal with it, who will? I do not believe that a satisfactory and efficient system can be devised.
I have had several letters from constituents objecting to the legislation in principle and drawing attention to certain aspects of it.

Mr. John Wheeler: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of exemption certificates and who is to be responsible for them, will he consider the problems in London, where we are unable to recruit a force of traffic wardens to enforce motor vehicle regulations? I


find it difficult to believe that we shall be able to recruit enough public servants to service a community of 7 million people in London, many of whom will be seeking exemption for good and valid reasons. Will my hon. Friend consider that matter and the substantial costs that will arise to the taxpayer and the ratepayer in consequence?

Mr. Trippier: I agree. I go further. In the monitoring over the two years consideration must be given to whether exemption certificates should be carried on the person or displayed on the windscreen. In that two years local authorities, which will be responsible for handing out exemption certificates, might use different methods. One local authority might require the certificate to be carried on the person and a neighbouring authority might require it to be displayed on the windscreen. If the certificate is to be carried on the person, the police will have to stop an amazing number of people to ask them why they are not wearing seat belts.

Sir Ronald Bell: The police might ask why they are not wearing exemption certificates.

Mr. Trippier: They might ask why they are not displaying the certificate on the windscreen. Again we are discussing an infringement of personal liberty.
I was involved in a serious accident. I was the only person in the vehicle to be injured and I was the only person wearing a seat belt. There are many such examples.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) has kept in order so far, but now he is outside the provisions of the new clause. He can mention what should be in the report, but he must not go into the details of the argument, which he is now doing.

Mr. Trippier: I accept that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, during the two-year period, others will experience the type of accident in which I was involved. Some people will be injured as a result of wearing a seat belt. That will have to be taken into consideration at the report stage in two years' time. I do not understand why we should charge a fee for exemption certificates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is outside the scope of the new clause. He can say whether exemption certificates should be issued and whether a charge should be made, but he must not make out a case. These matters have already been discussed.

Mr. Trippier: I accept that, but in the two-year report stage we might find—

Sir Ronald Bell: When my hon Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trip-pier) talks about a two-year report stage, is he referring to the present Report stage of the Bill?

Mr. Trippier: I am not, although my hon. and learned Friend might wish the Report stage to last two years. I am convinced that when a report is presented in two years objections will have been made by people who do not believe that they should have to pay a fee for an exemption certificate simply because they are chronic asthmatics, for example.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I assume that my hon. Friend, the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trip-pier) is referring to exemptions on medical grounds, which any Government would allow. The experience of other countries and medical advice here indicate that only a tiny number of people will be able to demonstrate a genuine medical reason for not wearing a seat belt. There is no evidence that that number cannot be handled by the issuing of certificates by general practitioners. There should be no difficulty for local authorities, traffic wardens or any enforcement bodies in dealing with the minute percentage of the population who have medical reasons for not wearing what is a valuable aid to their safety.

Mr. Trippier: I accept some of what the Parliamentary Secretary says, but it is fascinating to speculate on how the legislation will be enforced.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: The Parliamentary Secretary says that only a tiny minority of people in other countries have been granted exemption certificates. That is not the point. We are worried not about the small number who will be granted certificates but about the numbers who might apply and the


monitoring of applications. That is the threat to the system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are completely out of order. They are going into the details of the issuing of certificates. That is not the purpose of the new clause. Hon. Members should discuss only what should be in the report in two years' time.

Mr. Trippier: I accept that ruling and I shall leave my arguments about exemption certificates.
Enforcement should be monitored in the two-year period. How much will people be fined during that period if they break the law by not wearing their seat belt? That can be monitored easily and it would provide ammunition.
Much has been said about exemptions for police men and Service men. If exemptions are made for police men, they will pull up motorists for not wearing seat belts when they are not wearing them in their police cars. It is wrong to bring a person before a court for breaking a law which is being broken by the person who enforces the law. That will have to be carefully monitored.
The Minister of Transport has introduced about 2,000 regulations on vehicles and road transport. About 90 per cent. are never enforced. This measure is in that category.

Mr. Whitney: In seeking to address myself briefly to new clause 4, I hope that I shall be allowed, within the limits of the rules of the House, to say that I do so, regrettably, from a position of deep mistrust of, not to say hostility, to, the whole principle that what we are debating. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to participate in one of these important debates. I believe that the liberty of this country is fundamental. I believe that far too much legislation is emanating from this House and the other place.
I speak as someone who spends more hours a week on a bicycle than in a motor car. I am not sure whether that is a qualification or a disqualification. I tremble to think of the anti-libertarian attitudes displayed on the Bill applied to my own dangerous form of transport.

Mr. Parris: If compulsory seat belts are here this year, can crash helmets for cyclists be far behind?

Mr. Whitney: Not only compulsory seat belts, I suggest. The very riding of a bicycle may be considered to he too dangerous for mere members of the public or Members of Parliament to indulge in it.
I would welcome the clause. Clearly, on the face of it, it is a good principle that this House should have the opportunity, every so often, to look at the results of its handiwork. If one is filled with such misgivings about the potential results, a fortiori should it not be written into the Act that we should be obliged so to do? I recognise that the promoter of the Bill has accepted this in principle. I should like to put forward one or two considerations that might make him pause before rushing too precipitously into accepting an amendment.
There has been some discussion about the difficulties of monitoring. It has been asked whether the police are equipped to carry out this operation, whether their resources are not already overstretched, and whether, indeed, their motivation exists. We accept, of course, that, if it is the will of the House, the police forces of this country will do their best to carry it out. But the will is one thing, the execution another.
The difficulties of monitoring are real. I am not persuaded, on the evidence produced so far, that the experience of other countries with this legislation, and particularly its monitoring, gives any cause for optimism that this would be an effective and successful process. We are told that legislation which obtains in this country is not relevant and cannot be used as an example of what may happen in other countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) mentioned Sweden. From 1932 until only a few years ago, Sweden lived under a Socialist Government and became immersed in what might be called nannyist legislation and nannyist attitudes of all kinds—the sort of attitudes that are reflected in this Bill. Forty-five years of that legislation, solidly, without a break, has impinged deeply on the political and social conciousness of Sweden and the Swedes. Happily, we are a long way down the road. We have not yet reached that stage. Now, after 3 May last year, we


are embarked on a course back to freedom. It would be inappropriate suddenly to veer off in this one sector of our life in the wrong direction, and follow the Swedish road. The Swedes themselves have seen the folly of their ways. In the last two elections, they have rejected the opportunities offered to them of Social Democratic or Socialist Governments.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that my hon. Friend is not implying that Sweden is having second thoughts about compulsory seat belt wearing. Concern was expressed by my hon. Friend and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the position in Sweden. After introducing compulsory seat belt wearing, Sweden found that the rate of wearing went up from 40 per cent. to 80 per cent. That achieved a reduction in fatal accidents of 35 per cent., a reduction in serious injuries of 50 per cent., and a reduction in slight injuries of 25 per cent. I am not aware of any second thoughts in Sweden or any other country where compulsory seat belt wearing has been introduced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are wandering off the point. What happens in Sweden has nothing to do with whether we report in two years' time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will revert to that matter. We have been debating for three hours a clause that seems to have gained general acceptance.

Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should like to pursue the experience in Sweden, but perhaps there will be another opportunity to do so during the consideration of this important Bill.

Mr. Wheeler: It is correct that the position of Sweden is irrelevant to us in the United Kingdom. We are concerned with a population of 56 million. We have a different legal and a different cultural history. There is no relevance at all. I hope that my hon. Friend will develop this line more.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not develop that line.

Mr. Whitney: I accede, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your ruling and your advice. I should like to take up the point at a

time more appropriate and more welcome and appropriate to the Chair. You said, a moment ago, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this clause had been accepted in principle by the whole House. With respect, it has not yet been accepted by myself.
I should like to put my misgivings to the House. They involve important points of principle that go beyond the important Bill we are discussing. If a mechanism for monitoring is set up, it will create an additional layer of bureaucracy, paperwork and form filling to an already overstrained structure. Someone would have to complete the reports, collate them and file them, read them, submit them, digest them and distil them. This is what reporting is. This is what monitoring is. It involves scarce, expensive public manpower.
This is no way to produce an effective country. It is no way to regenerate the economy, as I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree. We must be careful, laudable in principle though monitoring may be, about the structure, superstructure, or perhaps the substructure that might be created in what seems a simple reporting on the operation of the Act. Reporting means work and time. We should not rush into this as a happy way of underwriting what we are doing.
I am not a constitutional expert, but it laws are made subject to regular review, I invite hon. Members to consider what would be at stake. We pass too many laws already, some of which are not as good as they might be. Perhaps they all need to be monitored by a panoply of bureaucracy. That might act as a deterrent to the introduction of more legislation of this kind, but the statute book is already full of legislation.
I know that logic is not the strongest factor in our deliberations, but in logic everything on the statute book—from years or decades ago—should also be the subject of a solemn report and consideration, year by year and minute by minute. Eventually, we may be so engaged in monitoring previous legislation that we should have no time—perhaps no energy —left to consider real legislation, which the citizens need. We should have no time for a much more important function—monitoring the operation of government rather than that of supererogatory laws.

Mr. Parris: My hon. Friend raised the spectre of a day when the House has so much previous legislation to review that it has no time to pass fresh legislation. I invite him to the view that that would be a happy day, when we would become a well-paid historical society.

Mr. Whitney: As someone has said—a consummation devoutly to be wished, but if so, let us proceed with that as our conscious objective and not stumble there by accident. I invite the House to consider the import of the new clause, which has been accepted in principle.

Sir Ronald Bell: I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary is with us again today. I had hoped for the presence of the Minister to further our discussions. The Parliamentary Secretary is helpful on gipsies but unsound on seat belts. You might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he is out of order because he should not be in the report, but—to revert to that war-time period that you and I both remember—I should like to put him in the report.
However, even the most desperate characters have a streak of goodness. When this proposal was considered in Committee, my hon. Friend said that he accepted the principle of a report but was not attracted by the terms of the proposal. He would like a report at the end of the first year and another at the end of the second year but not annual reports thereafter. I think that I am quoting him accurately.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is remembering what I said at the start of the debate on this new clause. It seems so long ago that it might have been in Committee, but it was in the House. My feeling was that I saw no reason for a statutory requirement for a report at all, although I assumed that there would be a great deal of monitoring, to use the popular phrase, of how the Bill was working in practice—if it ever reached the statute book.

Sir R. Bell: The recollection of my hon. Friend is clouding over with the mists of time. He did say that on the Floor of the House during the early stages on Report but in Committee he is reported as saying that he was attracted

by the thought of a report after one year and another after two years. The proposal in Committee was that there should be a report after the first two years and then an annual report.
My hon. Friend said that he thought that two years was too long a period before the first report. He favoured a report after one year followed by a second one but did not favour annual reports for ever. I am attracted by that reasoning and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) is not here today. He was speaking when we adjourned last time and his speech is incomplete. He questioned the desirability of this new clause and said explicitly that if he could find another hon. Member to tell with him he would divide the House against it.
What the Minister said in Committee is of interest to us today as we ask ourselves what the purpose of a report would be. There has been much talk of monitoring, as there was two weeks ago. I feel that what has happened is that hon. Members were tending to stray outside the strict bounds of relevance on the new clause and constantly sought to justify what they were saying by a quick reference to monitoring.
I do not doubt that one useful purpose of a report or a series of reports would be something that one might call monitoring but I do not see monitoring as a prime justification for the reports asked for in this new clause. This is a highly controversial subject. If it were not, we would not be engaged in these long proceedings. If this were not a controversial matter, I would not be regretting the presence of my hon. Friend. I could not have said a fortnight ago that I wished that my hon. Friend were paired with his Minister had this discussion not been of a controversial character. This is an issue on which people take sides strongly. Households are divided against themselves Even the Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), and the Parliamentary Secretary are totally opposed in their assessment of its value.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. and learned Friend keeps referring to me. May I say that there is not a wide divergence of view between us? There have been


many times during the proceedings on this Bill when I would have wished to be elsewhere. Today has proved no exception.

Sir R. Bell: Let not my hon. Friend stand upon the order of his going. We like him but we do not want him here. It is as simple as that. He is wrong about this Bill.
The issue of the reports asked for in new clause 4 is intensely controversial. There is a vehement clash of opinion on the matter. The proposal advocating a report is being put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) with the intention that after the Act had been in operation for a year or two there might be a gathering of evidence about how it was working. That evidence might elucidate the differences of opinion, illuminate the dark places and resolve the controversy.
After all, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough is an opponent of the Bill on principle, just as I am, and others of my hon. Friends and the Minister. They are all opponents of the Bill on principle. We say that any advantage in terms of a reduction in deaths or injuries which might accrue does not balance the infringement of personal liberty.
That is a very different question, for no one really knows what advantage would accrue, nor how acute in practice would be the infringement of personal liberties. A report made after one or two years' investigation would cast some light on that. It would provide evidence where now there is a high degree of speculation. I should like to see such a report because I believe it would help us in this controversy.
Some remarkable statistics have been served up to us. Such a report—if we ever got to the stage of having one—would give us some authentic statistics. After all, reports are not simply monitoring exercises. This House not infrequently passes Acts of Parliament directing that reports shall be made. We even set up bodies to give them.
One of the more expensive and certainly the most absurd of all quangos is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Accidents, which pours out

reports of a highly biased character and, indeed, circulates its reports to hon. Members in order to canvass support for the Bill.
The Bill is a classic exercise in pressure group legislation. Hon. Members will know that in the weeks leading up to the introduction of the Bill—and this is the third time that a Bill of this sort has been introduced—we were subjected to a deluge of propaganda, often dressed up in the form of tendentious statistics, by bodies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Accidents. There is no established body, apart from the Royal Automobile Club, which sends us the countervailing arguments. There is, in fact, no authoritative report because ROSPA, as I shall call it, and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, have been nobbled by the proponents of the measure.
The great value of a statutory report would be that we would have an authentic gathering together of the factual considerations which bear upon this subject. What are the factual considerations? What would be the reward for the intrusion on personal liberty? That has never been properly examined by an authoritative body.
The number of people killed on the roads in an average year is 6,600. I know that hon. Members have been bullied over a period of years by reports to the effect that if we proceeded with legislation of this kind 1,000 lives a year would he saved. Hon. Members will be familiar with the figure because it has been given to us in print many times in the past. But, of that figure of 6,600 lives over 4,000 are in categories unaffected by the Bill—pedestrians, motor cyclists, pedal cyclists. That leaves only about 2,000. Of that number, many would be in the back seats of motor cars, and therefore unaffected by the provisions of the Bill. There will be exemptions, which we shall consider later. We do not know now who will be exempted. Some of the remainder—perhaps 1,500—will come under one exemption or another in the Bill, They will be too young, too old, too small, too ill, or whatever.

Mr. Whitney: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many people who are passionately opposed to the


principle of the Bill may nevertheless accept the inference of the statistics from what he chooses to call the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Accidents. There may be 1,500 deaths as a result of the non-wearing of seat belts, and perhaps people should, in their own interests, wear seat belts. However, at issue is the freedom, rights and duties of the House. We are not at issue about the desirability or otherwise of the individual making up his own mind to wear a seat belt.

Sir Ronald Bell: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. Mary I, in passing, correct the figure of 1,500. I do not think that that figure has ever been claimed, but I have heard claimed a figure of 1,000.
However, we are considering a new clause concerning the making of a report. The significance of a report is that we need real information on which to base a judgment. I have made it clear—I made it clear a fortnight ago—that, whatever the figure, assuming that there were 1,000 deaths every year as a result of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, I would be opposed to the Bill in principle. I am not prepared to accept this sort of intrusion into the freedom of the individual. That is an absolute position that I hold, but that absolute position is probably not held by most people.
There is probably a price that most people are prepared to pay for freedom, and they will not go beyond that. Many people in the community might say that if it will save 1,000 lives and 5,000 serious injuries they will accept the intrusion on their freedom. Equally, they might say that if it would only save 400 lives and 2,000 serious injuries in relation to a population of 56 million, it is a price that they would not pay. Most people come into that category. For them it is a question of degree. They make a balance between the tangible and the intangible. Those people would gain from a report. People in my position would gain nothing. If the figures are multiplied by 10, it makes no difference to me. That is my absolute position. There are others on the fringe of the argument who say that if it saves one life, it is all right. The main body of opinion is in the middle, as so often happens. For those people it is a question of balance.
At the moment we are arguing about those matters. I quoted figures from an article that I wrote myself. I prefer to quote from myself, because I have found from experience that I am the only person with whom I always agree, and on whom I can entirely rely. But no doubt others have engaged in this field also. But if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) were here he might not accept my figures or my analysis of them. He might not accept the inferences which I drew from my analysis of the figures.
Others might doubt them. I do not agree with the learned Gentleman's analysis or statistics, or the argument that he bases on them. It however, there were a report to Parliament from a Department—a Department in which at least one Minister was unbiased and one was biased, and one cancelled out the other—under the terms of the statute there would be no room for tendentious statistics.
Furthermore, the figures would be based upon experience in this country. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends are as tired as I am of being bullied with the record of Australia or Victoria. We never hear the end of that. Of course, we can say that Australia and Victoria are not in this country. Conditions here are different. This country is densely populated and densely trafficked. Australia is, by comparison, empty. Every country has complications. That is exactly where an authoritative statement would put us in a different position.
We were told that the experience in Australia was of a drop of about 20 per cent. in casualties in the four years after the introduction of the compulsory wearing of seat belts in 1970. Our riposte is that in the same four-year period in Britain the decrease in casualties without such a law was, as a proportion, 75 times as great. There was at that time trouble about the price of oil. A speed restriction was imposed on our roads. At the same time Australia imposed a 50 mph speed restriction. Who then can say that it is possible to make a profitable comparison between them and us? In both cases the statistics were dominated by other factors. We have nothing better than these exchanges of opinion—opinions sometimes confidently


held and based upon a very narrow framework.
If a Bill such as this is in force there is some sort of statutory base for the statistics and information gathered. I am not pretending that they would be comprehensive, but they would be better than anything we have now. At the moment when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary produces figures, as he did just now, those most frequently quoted for this country are based on a sample of 100 corpses. They are odd statistics, but what else can be done? A couple of medical consultants examine 100 corpses. They know whether seat belts were worn and they say whether the individuals concerned would have survived if they had been wearing a seat belt.
The fascinating point is—and this should occupy a whole chapter in the report—that they found that 2 per cent. of all the deaths in motor cars were caused by seat belts. With the present level of wearing 50 deaths a year are caused on our roads by seat belts. If the rate of wearing went up from 50 per cent. to 85 per cent., as is desired, the number killed by the seat belt itself would be 128 per year. This is a consideration that has a tremendous effect on people. They say that we are not entitled to use compulsion when the effect of using it may be kill a person.
I know that these are crude statistics. Again this is where a report would be of benefit. Of the 128 killed by wearing seat belts, some would have been killed if they had not been wearing seat belts. There is no doubt about that. But of those who were killed who were not wearing seat belts some would have been killed anyway if they had been wearing seat belts. Nobody can be precise on this matter. We are extrapolating from a tiny base. One starts with 100 corpses then sends out printed circulars and authoritative-looking reports in which one extrapolates from 100 to 2,600 and gives an authoritative saving for a population of 56 million. Of course, that is nonsense.
The difficulty is that we are debating this matter in the absence of any proper information and proposing to clamp compulsion upon our compatriots. I suppose that if we were to obtain the information

in the form that I wish, we might at least be able to move forward to removing compulsion. I believe that that would be the result of having a proper report.
A fortnight ago when someone was referring to the length of our proceedings on a Bill such as this. I said that if we could encourage hon. Members to come to the Chamber on a Friday and listen to the arguments put forward, I would be a lot happier leaving this matter to the decision of those present in the House at the time. But what happens when this subject is debated is that we talk to about a dozen or so people and when the bells ring at the end of the afternoon about 400 people take part in the Division. They have not heard any of the arguments, know nothing about the information or the statistics apart from what they have received through the post in the form of apparently authoritative reports.
That is why we who oppose the Bill are at a disadvantage in this argument. This is pressure group legislation. Pressure groups, almost by definition, have their propaganda; and those who believe in freedom and in allowing people to be left alone, almost by definition are not a pressure group. No pressure group is formed for freedom, for leaving people alone or for allowing them to do nothing. Therefore, there is no propaganda to assist such people. That is the gap that would be filled by a proper system of reporting under the terms of the new clause. That is the main reason for and justification of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, though it is not the only one.
I put aside at the beginning of my speech the concept of monitoring. Everybody had been talking about monitoring and I wanted to draw attention back to the broader and to me more fundamental issue of adequate knowledge about this subject. However, there is the aspect of monitoring. Perhaps it is the same thing looked at from a slightly different angle, but the ordinary member of the public will want to know the truth about not only the possible saving of life but the avoidance of injury. He will also want to know how keen will be the intrusion upon the freedom of the individual and what will be the effect upon the relations


between the police force and the public of proposals of this kind.
2 pm
As to the intrusion upon the freedom of the individual, I do not know that that is the kind of thing that can be reduced into reportable form as well as most things; I suppose not. But there must be something to be gained from experience in a matter of that kind.
I intervened earlier to give an example of what very easily could be gleaned in that matter by referring to Mr. Hill. As some hon. Members will know, he is a motor cyclist who has an objection of deep principle to wearing a crash helmet. Parliament has passed a law compelling people to wear crash helmets when riding motor bicycles. This raises the same issue of freedom. Under that law, we are getting our quota of martyrs, people who feel so strongly about it that they will go to prison rather than obey.
I take Mr. Hill as a prototype, as a decent, hard-working, honest citizen of this country. He is in prison now. He came out of prison only a few weeks ago. He is continually in and out of prison. The police pounce on him, they even wait for him, and he finds himself in a police cell. On principle Mr. Hill goes on fighting.
This is what we start up when we pass laws that affront people's concept of liberty. They may be wrong. I do not know. It is a matter of argument. But the seat belt law would raise 10 times as many martyrs as the crash helmet law, and that is something about which we want to know. It is something that can be tabulated and put into a report. Some of the more intangible aspects of personal freedom—the resentments, and so on—are very difficult to put into cold print, but the number of people who feel so strongly about the law that they defy it on principle, and become what in a grander way are called prisoners of conscience, we can know about.
This House must question itself very seriously indeed before it embarks on that field. Our country is full of people who want to do good to others by compulsion, people with itching fingers who cannot keep their noses out of other people's business and are never lacking some argument about the impact upon

other members of the community to justify that.
We are told that one can justify this outrageous encroachment upon personal liberty by talking about the extra burden on the Health Service. Let us hear about it. Let us have it quantified in the light of experience. Then, when we have this in black and white, we shall know whether we want to encroach into people's homes, where there are more accidents than there are on the roads, and more deaths than are caused on the roads. What shall we do about attempted suicides? We shall have the evidence to weigh that. Are we to slap them into prison, having recently passed a law to say that we shall not do that?
If we are to find some saving in the cost of the Health Service by passing a law such as this, it would be only a small fraction of the saving that would ensue by requiring pedestrians in towns to wear crash helmets. That is of course lunacy, but it is the sort of thing that the Swedes might do. I shall not go further than that.
I do not believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will have to admonish me about Sweden. I learnt my lesson about speaking of Sweden on a Friday a few years ago, when the Whips got me in to talk about something. I mentioned Sweden. There was an important horse race that day, and all self-respecting press correspondents were at that race, except the beastly Swede. I did not hear the end of the matter for months. I had a letter from the Minister for Social Affairs in Sweden. The Swedes could easily pass a law requiring pedestrians to wear crash helmets.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hate to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend's argument, but I believe that a moment ago he almost made an incursion from home accidents into the place of work. For years and years we have had legislation in that respect of exactly the same kind as that contemplated over seat belts. Would my hon. and learned Friend say that it was wrong that the Factories Act legislation, makes it a criminal offence for an employer or employee to remove safety devices from power presses? Alternatively, would he say that, in the interests of individual liberty, as long as the press operator and his employer agree that they can take off interlocking


guards, they should be allowed to do so? Many would do so if we repealed the long-standing Factories Act legislation.

Sir R. Bell: A safety device on a press is a little different from a seat belt on a human being. I do not expect that the press feels at all insulted by having a safety device put on it.

Mr. Clarke: It is there to protect the human being. I have had experience of industrial accident work in the Black Country for years. Many press operators resent the fact that the law makes them have an interlocking guard on the press. They could earn more money on piecework, as some of them try to do, by taking it off. It is against the law to do so, because people lose hands and fingers. In my hon. and learned Friend's opinion, they would be exercising their freedom if they took the guard off.

Sir R. Bell: With great respect, my hon. Friend keeps intervening with Second Reading points. I assure him that I dealt with those points in my speech on Second Reading. We are at present discussing a new clause on Report. In a way, my hon. Friend's intervention reinforces what I was saying. It is a question of degree and fact.
Some people would support the restrictions by balancing the gain against the detriment. If they do not know either, they cannot arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
Having been fortunate enough to be in a profession all my life, I do not know anything about the gain or detriment of putting guards on presses. They do not have them in the Temple.
In this Bill we have not had the information on which to reach a conclusion. It does not worry me as an individual, because my position is somewhat absolute, but it affects about nine-tenths of the public.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the Minister's intervention is not only not a Second Reading point but is absolutely germane to the point that my hon. and learned Friend is making? The Minister is calling in aid quite wrongly in support of his case the situation with regard to industrial injuries. On the contrary, surely the case that my hon. and learned Friend is making is supported by the intervention. It is

well known to all hon. Members that the industrial safety at work legislation is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. It is impossible to enforce the legislation on two parties, manager and employee, neither of whom wants to work it. The danger is that the legislation currently before the House will be likewise unenforceable, and will likewise be considered with contempt by the people who do not want to enforce it. It therefore ought not to go on the statue book.

Sir R. Bell: I shall rescue my hon. Friend's intervention from any infraction of the rules of order by attaching a skyhook to it and relating it to the second part of my speech, which I have already entered upon. While I have laid emphasis on the factual importance of the report, we also have to consider the monitoring aspect. We wish to know what effect the attempt to enforce the Bill would have upon the public—that is why I mentioned Mr. Hill on the martyr side —upon the police, and upon their relations with the public.
Most members of the public come into contact with the police in relation to motoring. In a way that is unfortunate, because it predisposes people to see the police force as a danger, and even as an enemy, rather than as their friend, protector and support. The police have enough duties which exacerbate their public relations without adding the most unwelcome task of prosecuting people for not wearing a seat belt. I wonder how genuinely happy the police are about such martyrs as Mr. Hill.
It is a beastly business. If the Bill is passed we will find, in a year or two, that any statutory report will contain references to a good deal of police unhappiness about the task imposed upon them. The public will be unhappy about police involvement. Far too much police time and manpower is devoted already to harassing motorists instead of protecting citizens in their homes. Some action must be taken about the harassment of motorists. I suppose that the police feel that they are doing their duty, and that they must enforce even the silliest law. The resentment caused by the totting up procedure, or the enforcement of the ridiculous 30 mph speed limit—which is antedeluvian in its application—should not be


underestimated. It is now suggested that when a motorist is stopped for exceeding the speed limit he should be prosecuted if he is not wearing a seat belt. I wonder what the sponsors of the Bill had in mind when they drafted it. They must have thought that there would be some enormous saving in flesh and blood—which I do not believe would happen—to make it worth causing such damage to the law enforcement procedures.
We read much about the shortage of police manpower. I am sorry to say that there always appear to be enough police for speed traps. I have been driving for more than 40 years and have never been caught, so I speak entirely without prejudice and simply as a Member of the House. It is a bad state of affairs. The police should be advised not to waste their time on such matters, and we should not add to that burden with this legislation.
Those hon. Members who support the Bill should say to the Minister "We are sorry, we have been wrong and you are right. It is a foolish Bill". However, if the new clause is passed and if, God forbid, the Bill is passed, in a couple of years I shall be able to say to my hon. Friends "Now you see that you are wrong", and my hon. Friends will say "Yes, we are wrong, but we did not know it until we were able to read the reports". If there were, to be two reports, one after a year and one after two years, they would be able to read the facts twice. We should then know that we had been right all along, and that this was a most undesirable measure.
For the reasons that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, and not with-

out some hesitation, I recommend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Parris: I followed with great care the rulings of your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, if anything, I think that he was stricter than you have been. I listened with not inconsiderable sympathy to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael), who has protested from the beginning that he is prepared to accept the new clause. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to go on at any length about whether the new clause is a good idea and whether it should be accepted.
I wish to address myself to the broader picture. I accept that there will be a report after two years and that it will be laid before the House. What should the terms of reference for that report be?
A great deal has been said about the areas of this legislation that should be monitored by the police, and the statistics that might result and the interpretation that might be placed upon them. That is the fine brushwork. I hope that the broader sweep will not be avoided. I hope that the report will suggest to the House that it should consider after two years whether the legislation has proved to be worth the candle. The purpose of such a report should be to prompt the House to ask whether it was worthwhile having the legislation at all.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrencerose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 12.

Division No. 217]
AYES
[2.18 pm


Anderson, Donald
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Rooker, J. W.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Field, Frank
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Short, Mrs Renée


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Graham, Ted
Soley, Clive


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Heffer, Eric S.
Stainton, Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Janner, Hon Greville
Stallard, A. W.


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Loveridge, John
Stoddart, David


Buck, Antony
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stradling Thomas, J.


Carmichael, Neil
McWilliam, John
Wakeham, John


Chapman, Sydney
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wellbeloved, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Moate, Roger
Winnick, David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham



Cohen, Stanley
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Race, Reg
Mr. D. A. Trippier and


Dobson, Frank
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Raymond Whitney.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Rhodes James, Robert





NOES


Bradley, Tom
Mayhew, Patrick
Stevens, Martin


English, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus



Finsberg, Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOB THE NOES:


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Matthew Parris and


Glyn, Dr Alan
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Keith Best.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Parris: The House, after examining the report, will decide not only that the Bill is not working in detail but that it is not working in general. It has been said that in a certain country, although only about 40 per cent. of the public wore seat belts when the law was introduced, at the end of four years 80 per cent. were wearing seat belts. That was adduced as an argument in favour of making the wearing of seat belts compulsory.
To me that is a sure argument for failure. If only 80 per cent. of people wear seat belts after a law has been enforced for four years that is a sign that the criminal law is being disregarded by 20 per cent. of the population. I hope that we are a long way from the day in Britain when the criminal law is used as a means of trying to persuade people to do things that they may not otherwise wish to do for their own safety.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I wonder why my hon. Friend is so modest about giving the name of the country involved.

Mr. Parris: I do not think that my hon. Friend was here—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 4 July.

PURCHASE AND SALE OF DWELLINGS (ADOPTION OF MODEL RULES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill: What day? No day named.

DOMESTIC FUEL REBATES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have the Government given instructions to the Whip to object to my Bill, which is to give relief to those on limited incomes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman well knows that I have no knowledge of what instructions the Government have. I simply accept that an objection was registered. What day? No day named.

BEVERAGE CONTAINERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day?

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On the authority of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. Friday 14 March.

DEFENCE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (INQUIRY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

JURY VETTING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords]

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 March.

HYPNOTISM BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 March.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions to approve the statutory instruments on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.)

EXPORT GUARANTEES

That the draft Export Guarantees (Limit on Foreign Currency Commitments) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.

That the draft Export Guarantees (Extension of Period) (No. 2) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question agreed to.

MR. CHRISTOPHER KELZANI

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. David Stoddart: It is one of the great strengths of our parliamentary system that hon. Members may raise in the House not only matters of great national or international import but the problems and difficulties of the most humble person.
I am therefore able to raise the case of Mr. Christopher Kelzani, a stateless person, who resides in my constituency and who has lived in the United Kingdom for some 10 years but is now faced with being deported to Egypt, a country in which he has never lived, where he has no relatives or friends and which he does not know. No doubt the House will think it odd and almost inconceivable that a man who has lived and worked in this country for 10 years should now be under threat of deportation, but, sadly, that is the case.
My objective in raising the matter is of course to make a final appeal to the Minister to exercise compassion, change his mind and allow Mr. Kelzani to remain in the United Kingdom.
The House will appreciate that there is a long history to this case. Indeed, I have been interceding with the Home Office on Mr. Kelzani's behalf for the past five years. During that period I have written countless letters to Ministers and have met them for face-to-face discussions, but in spite of all my efforts and those of other people and organisations, including Mr. Kelzani's resent employer who thinks highly of him, it has remained the intention of the Home Secretary to send him away from this country.
Mr. Kelzani came to the United Kingdom from the Gaza Strip on 12 August 1970 to undertake a course of study in chemistry, physics and biology at Chippenham technical college. He was at first supported financially by his brothers but unfortunately this assistance ceased in 1971.
As a result of this difficulty, the Home Office was good enough to vary his conditions of entry to allow him to take a job at C. T. Harris and Company, of Calne, in November 1971 and he remained in that job until the end of May 1974. He then, however, obtained another post at Linton and Hurst, of Swindon, as a process worker but, due to an oversight, arrrangements were not made for a variation of his conditions of entry and he was accordingly discharged from that post.
It was around this time that I became interested in Mr. Kelzani's case but the Home Office was unable to agree to permanent residence and further stated that, unless he was able to obtain employment approved by the Department of Employment, he would have to leave the United Kingdom. Mr. Kelzani applied for a number of jobs but the Department of Employment felt unable to give its approval to these posts and has continued to withhold approval.
As a result of these problems and the insistence by the Home Office that he should leave the United Kingdom, Mr. Kelzani took his case before an adjudicator on 26 April 1977. It is important to note that on this occasion the adjudicator, Air Vice-Marshal Ayling, stated


that if Mr. Kelzani was not returnable to Egypt, he should be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom.
From that time onward there has been dispute as to whether Mr. Kelzani was returnable to Egypt. The Home Office took the view that since Mr. Kelzani had an Egyptian travel document, he should be allowed to enter Egypt but the Egyptians took a contrary view and refused to issue a visa.
So the case has dragged on and on. I have continued to represent his case because I believed he was being treated unjustly and, to some degree, was being hounded out of this country, which he loves and where he has settled down and made friends.
Because he did not wish to be a charge on the State Mr. Kelzani took employment at the Blunsdon House hotel, where he worked first of all as a kitchen porter, but was later promoted to the post of kitchen hygiene supervisor. Mr. Clifford, his employer and a director of the Blunsdon House hotel, speaks highly of him and wrote to me about him in glowing terms in a letter dated 20 January 1979:
Dear Mr. Stoddart,

Chris Kelzani

I am writing to you with reference to Chris Kelzani in the hope that you will be able to convince the Home Secretary to allow him to stay in this country.
I know you are very well informed about his background of unfortunate accidental occurrences that now affect his predicament and that we, as his employers, have done everything within our power in the two years he has been working with us to support him in his efforts to regularise his position, including a personal representation at a special Tribunal in Southampton, which appeared to us not to consider his case fully.
We feel that as an individual his integrity is above reproach. Since he has been with us as our Kitchen Hygiene Supervisor he has made a significant contribution to our company's standing, including winning the highly coveted Egon Ronay/British Steel Corporation Clean Kitchen Award. Deportation, with nowhere to go, as a result of fated circumstance would be totally unjust to a very genuine person".

It is clear that Mr. Kelzani has been doing useful work, is not a charge on the State and is as acceptable to his employers as he is to those friends and neighbours who know him.

However, in spite of his good work and references, Mr. Kelzani was still under pressure from the Home Office to leave

the United Kingdom although it did allow an appeal to an immigration appeal tribunal. Mr. Kelzani was assisted in this appeal by officers of the Community Relations Executive in Swindon and the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. The appeal was heard on 23 November 1978 but was, unfortunately, dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, I made further representations and saw the then Minister of State, Home Office—my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John)—on 17 January 1979 to try to prevail upon him not to recommend the signing of a deportation order. However, my representations were not successful and I received a letter from the Minister of State dated 2 May 1979 saying that the Home Secretary was being recommended to make a deportation order against Mr. Kelzani.

On 3 May the general election resulted in a change of Government and on 9 May, after the new Government had been formed, I wrote to the new Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) appealing to him not to sign the deportation order against Mr. Kelzani, but the appeal was in vain and the deportation order was signed on 24 May.

Mr. Kelzani was ultimately arrested on 13 June 1979 and sent to Horfield prison to await deportation. But that was not the end of the story, for I was appalled to hear at the beginning of July that Mr. Kelzani was still being held at Horfield prison, since he could not be deported to Egypt because the Egyptian authorities would not issue an entry visa in spite of the fact that I had been assured that a visa had been obtained. I took the view that Mr. Kelzani was being wrongly held in custody and that the deportation order was defective and should never have been signed. I therefore made immediate representations to the Home Secretary for his release and raised the matter with the Prime Minister at Question Time in the Commons. Mr. Kelzani was then released from prison on 6 July.

Following this incident, I wrote to the Minister of State on 11 July, saying that I felt that Mr. Kelzani had suffered enough and asked for a meeting to make further representations about his deportation. As the Minister of State knows,


I saw him on 2 August 1979 and emphasised a number of points about Mr. Kelzani's case. At that interview I told the Minister that his Department was deserving of censure for allowing Mr. Kelzani to be imprisoned for over three weeks because officials had not assured themselves that he could be sent back to Egypt. I expressed the view that the man had suffered enough and that it would be an act of perversity and cruelty if the Home Office insisted on deportation.

I also stressed at that time, and I want to further stress now, that Mr. Kelzani entered the United Kingdom legally and the only reason why he finds himself in his present position is that he changed his job without the permission of the Department of Employment. He changed his job without permission due to a misunderstanding of his position and not because he wilfully wished to break the rules. His punishment in these circumstances for that peccadillo has been harsh indeed.

I also want to stress again that Mr. Kelzani did enter the United Kingdom legally, had not attempted to disappear and has only wanted to work and make a contribution to society.

Perhaps I should interpolate here, in case the Minister of State brings it up, that Mr. Kelzani did disappear when the police first came to arrest him and take him to Horfield prison. That was due to a real mess-up by the police, who did not turn up at his residence at the time arranged. The man was so terrified of his position that he did disappear for a short time. However, he was quickly picked up and, as I have said, imprisoned—in my view wrongly—at Horfield.

It is an odd quirk of fate that while many people who have entered this country illegally and have remained illegally have had their position regularised, Mr. Kelzani, who has not acted illegally in any true sense, is being sent away.

As I have said, I saw the hon. Gentleman on 2 August last year and urged him to allow Mr. Kelzani to remain in the United Kingdom, but on 13 February I received a letter from him stating that the Egyptian authorities had authorised the issue of a visa for entry to Egypt and that it had been decided to proceed

without further delay to implement the deportation order against Mr. Kelzani.

I have, therefore, brought the matter before the House and at this stage I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions.

First, is the Minister satisfied that his action in deporting Mr. Kelzani is in accordance with the United Nations convention on stateless persons and has he been able to convince the United Nations authorities accordingly?

Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that Mr. Kelzani will not only be allowed to enter Egypt but that once there he will be entitled to remain there permanently and to take up employment?

Thirdly, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that once in Egypt Mr. Kelzani will be able to find a place to live and to find remunerative employment?

Fourthly, if the Egytian authorities have given him assurances in writing that Mr. Kelzani has "the right of abode" in Egypt, can the Minister say whether, by giving such permission to Mr. Kelzani, the Egytians have changed their policy towards all those thousands of Palestinians who hold Egyptian travel documents but who, up to now, have had no right of abode in Egypt? Does Mr. Kelzani's case in fact set a precedent which will now be followed in the case of all those other Palestinians holding Egyptian travel documents?

These are important questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer.

I have tried to set out Mr. Kelzani's case as fully and as honestly as possible in the time available to me, and the House will, I feel sure, be amazed at the amount of time, effort and money which has been extended over the past five years in trying to get rid of a man who has been a good hard working citizen, who has not been a charge on the State, who is not a waster but a man who has settled down in this country, made friends and done a useful job of work. Here is a man who, through a mere technicality, is being forced out of a country that he loves and where he has done well, to a future which is uncertain and possibly dangerous. All who know Mr. Kelzani and who know of his background are appalled that he should be so harshly treated, and are bewildered by the obstinate refusal of a succession


of Ministers to use their compassionate powers to allow him to remain in Britain.

I have persisted with Mr. Kelzani's case for so long because I believe that he has suffered injustice. I believe, even at this late stage, that the Minister should change his mind and exercise his discretion in favour of Mr. Kelzani.

If he does so, he will not be seen to be weak, will not be seen to be suffering defeat, will not be setting any precedents, but will instead be regarded as a humane man having a care for the individual, no matter whom he may be, and at the same time upholding our great British tradition of giving succour to the underdog and providing refuge for the oppressed and the unfortunate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I am the first to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) has been consistent in his support for Mr. Kelzani and has, as he said, corresponded with my predecessors and myself on Mr. Kelzani's behalf since 1975. He has also discussed the case at meetings with my immediate predecessor and with me, and many of the details are familiar to him. He has set out many of them in the course of his speech. I hope, however, that he will bear with me while I set out the history of the case as we see it, since it provides the background against which my right hon. Friend decided last May that Mr. Kelzani should be deported.
Mr. Kelzani was born in the Gaza Strip and came here as the holder of an Egyptian travel document. I should make clear that he did not have a work permit but was admitted to the United Kingdom in August 1970 for two months as a student, subject to a condition prohibiting his employment. While he was enrolled at a college of further education, the financial support that he had hitherto enjoyed from his brother, resident in Saudi Arabia, ceased and he was unable to continue with his studies. To help him out of his difficulties he was allowed to take a job approved by the Department of Employment, and he was given extensions of stay for that purpose.
In May 1974 Mr. Kelzani left the job that had been approved for him, and switched to another without permission. The Home Office was not made aware of

that until nearly five months later, when he asked to be allowed to settle here. The Department of Employment was unable to approve the post that Mr. Kelzani had improperly taken because there was local unemployed British labour available in the area. His application to settle here could not be granted, but, even so, he was given a chance to submit a fresh offer of employment which could be approved. He was unable to do so, and he had to be supported by social security payments. Mr. Kelzani's application to settle was refused in September 1975. Further leave to remain was refused in December 1975, after another abortive attempt to find work which the Department of Employment could approve, and he was told to leave the country.
Mr. Kelzani had no right of appeal against the Home Office decision, but he was allowed an extra-statutory review of his case by the appellate authorities. In April 1977 the adjudicator upheld the Home Office decision and the tribunal confirmed it the following month. The adjudicator made clear his opinion that Mr. Kelzani had been treated with almost quixotic generosity, and that his troubles were of his own making.
Following that review by the appellate authorities, representations were made on Mr. Kelzani's behalf by the hon. Member for Swindon. They were rejected by the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and Mr. Kelzani was twice told to make his arrangements to leave the country. He failed to do so and, as a result, he was arrested by the police and charged with overstaying. He was convicted of this offence and fined.
It then fell to the Home Office to consider enforcing Mr. Kelzani's departure. In addition to the conviction for overstaying, there had been a conviction in September 1975 for assault causing actual bodily harm to a deaf and dumb couple for which offence Mr. Kelzani had been fined.

Mr. Stoddart: The Minister has seen correspondence on that incident. I am sure he knows that it was caused through a misunderstanding, and it was not wilful assault by Mr. Kelzani.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman said that the assault was apparently forgiven


by the couple who were assaulted. However, he was not able to back that up with a letter from the couple. They made it clear when they were approached by the community relations officer for Thamesdown that they were unwilling to discuss the matter or to co-operate in any way. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation.
Apart from that, however, Mr. Kelzani had no claim under the immigration rules to remain in Britain, and since it was clear that he had no intention of going voluntarily, in February 1978 he was served with a notice of the then Home Secretary's intention to deport him to Egypt. That decision was taken after the then Under-Secretary of State had considered the further representations from the hon. Member for Swindon. Again Mr. Kelzani appealed first to the adjudicator and thereafter to the tribunal, but, again, both appeals were dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeals, the hon. Member for Swindon had a meeting with my predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) who, after careful consideration, decided that the case should go to the then Home Secretary for him to consider making a deportation order.
After the change of Government, my right hon. Friend and I gave careful consideration to the case, including all that had been said by the hon Member for Swindon, but we concluded that deportation was the right course and the order was signed by my right hon. Friend on 24 May 1979 and served on Mr. Kelzani on 11 June 1979, when it was discovered that he had apparently lost his Egyptian travel document. He was told to make arrangements for his departure and to meet the police on the following day. In the meantime the police contacted the Egyptian consulate to seek documentation. Mr. Kelzani failed to keep the appointment and was arrested in Bournemouth on 13 June. In view of his attempt to go to ground, he was detained under the deportation order but was subsequently released from custody on 6 July 1979 after representations from the hon Member for Swindon subject to a restriction order requiring him to report weekly to the police.
As my right hon. Friend assured the hon. Member on 12 July 1979 in res-

ponce to his parliamentary questions, inquiries had been made of the Egyptian authorities about Mr. Kelzani's admissibility to Egypt before the deportation order was made. I think I should make it clear at this stage that the root cause of his not being deported to Egypt last year was that Mr. Kelzani had mislaid his Egyptian travel document. My right hon. Friend also undertook to consult the London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees before Mr. Kelzani was returned to Egypt. This has been done. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has been informed and agrees that Mr. Kelzani can return to Egypt. It has asked to be informed of his removal to that country so that it or the United Nations Works and Relief Agency in Egypt can keep in touch with the case.
The hon. Gentleman put a number of questions to me, but I cannot answer them straight off. However, I can say that once Mr. Kelzani has been returned to Egypt he will re-acquire the protection afforded by the United Nations Works and Relief Agency. The detailed supervision of Mr. Kelzani's case will he handled by the Cairo office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and we have already consulted the London representative of the High Commissioner and will let him know of the deportation arrangements.
I have recently seen a report in the press which the hon. Member did not mention of Mr. Kelzani's friendship with a married woman. It is apparent from that report that the friendship is of recent origin and that it has developed since the signing of the deportation order. I am afraid that I can see in that report no valid reason for deferring Mr. Kelzani's removal.
I acknowledge that Mr. Kelzani has been in the United Kingdom since 1970, but I must point out that he was refused leave to remain in December 1975. He has been able to stay for over four years now by the operation of the appeals system and not least by the efforts of the hon. Member to delay his removal. I do not complain of the hon. Member's efforts but the effect of the resulting delay cannot reasonably be prayed in aid on Mr. Kelzani's behalf. I have again considered


the case but, as I informed the hon. Member on 13 February, I understand that Mr. Kelzani will be accepted by the Egyptian authorities and that he will reassume the protection originally afforded by the United Nations Works and Relief Agency. I do not think that anyone could reasonably deny that Mr. Kelzani's case has been given every consideration, and arrangements to implement the deportation order will now proceed.
I must repeat that I do not think that the mere fact that the formal and informal appeal system can be prolonged for so long can be regarded as grounds for allowing someone to stay. If it were, the temptation to spin things out interminably would become even stronger than it already is.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.